ARCHIVED - Transcript
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
Providing Content in Canada's Official Languages
Please note that the Official Languages Act requires that government publications be available in both official languages.
In order to meet some of the requirements under this Act, the Commission's transcripts will therefore be bilingual as to their covers, the listing of CRTC members and staff attending the hearings, and the table of contents.
However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded verbatim transcript and, as such, is transcribed in either of the official languages, depending on the language spoken by the participant at the hearing.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
FOR THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
TRANSCRIPTION DES AUDIENCES DU
CONSEIL DE LA RADIODIFFUSION
ET DES TÉLÉCOMMUNICATIONS CANADIENNES
SUBJECT / SUJET:
CANADIAN TELEVISION POLICY REVIEW /
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES DU CONSEIL
RELATIVES À LA TÉLÉVISION CANADIENNE
HELD AT: TENUE À:
Conference Centre Centre des conférences
Outaouais Room Salle Outaouais
Place du Portage Place du Portage
Phase IV Phase IV
Hull, Quebec Hull (Québec)
October 1, 1998 1er octobre 1998
Volume 7
tel: 613-521-0703 StenoTran fax: 613-521-7668
Transcripts
Transcription
Afin de rencontrer les exigences de la Loi sur les langues
officielles, les procès-verbaux pour le Conseil seront
bilingues en ce qui a trait à la page couverture, la liste des
membr5es et du personnel du CRTC participant à l'audience
publique ainsi que la table des matières.
Toutefois, la publication susmentionnée est un compte rendu
textuel des délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée
et transcrite dans l'une ou l'autre des deux langues
officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le
participant à l'audience publique.
StenoTran
Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission
Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des
télécommunications canadiennes
Transcript / Transcription
Public Hearing / Audience publique
Canadian Television Policy Review /
Examen des politiques du Conseil
relatives à la télévision canadienne
BEFORE / DEVANT:
Andrée Wylie Chairperson / Présidente
Vice-Chairperson, Radio-
television / Vice-
présidente, Radiodiffusion
Joan Pennefather Commissioner / Conseillère
Andrew Cardozo Commissioner / Conseiller
Martha Wilson Commissioner / Conseillère
David McKendry Commissioner / Conseiller
ALSO PRESENT / AUSSI PRÉSENTS:
Jean-Pierre Blais Commission Counsel /
Avocat du Conseil
Margot Patterson Articling Student /
Stagiaire
Carole Bénard / Secretaries/Secrétaires
Diane Santerre
Nick Ketchum Hearing Manager / Gérant de
l'audience
HELD AT: TENUE À:
Conference Centre Centre des conférences
Outaouais Room Salle Outaouais
Place du Portage Place du Portage
Phase IV Phase IV
Hull, Quebec Hull (Québec)
October 1, 1998 1er octobre 1998
Volume 7
StenoTran
TABLE OF CONTENTS / TABLE DES MATIÈRES
PAGE
Presentation by / Présentation par:
Trinity Television Inc. 1929
PIAC, Public Interest Advocacy Centre/le Centre 1966
pour la défense de l'intérêt public representing/
représentant the National Anti-poverty
Organization (NAPO), la Fédération nationale des
associations de consommateurs du Québec (FNACQ),
One Voice, The Canadian Seniors Network and
Rural Dignity of Canada
Astral Communications inc. 2012
Le Groupe Coscient inc. 2108
CAFDE, Canadian Association of Film Distributors 2164
and Exporters/ACDEF, Association canadienne des
distributeurs et exportateurs de films
DGC, Directors Guild of Canada/GCR, La guilde 2197
canadienne des réalisateurs
SPACQ, Société professionnelle des auteurs et des 2247
compositeurs du Québec
StenoTran
1929
1 Hull, Quebec / Hull (Québec)
2 --- Upon resuming on Thursday, October 1, 1998
3 at 0900 / L'audience reprend le jeudi
4 1er octobre 1998, à 0900
5 8972 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to
6 all.
7 8973 If this were New York City the TV
8 screens would have said the temperature is such and
9 it's a bad hair day. We don't have that in Canada yet.
10 We haven't had any recommendations to that effect, but
11 it is bizarre. They do do that.
12 8974 Madam Secretary, good morning. Will
13 you please call the next participant.
14 8975 MS BÉNARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
15 8976 The first presentation will be by
16 Trinity Television Incorporated. Mr. Thiessen.
17 8977 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning.
18 8978 MR. THIESSEN: Good morning, Madam
19 Chair.
20 8979 I don't have a problem with a bad
21 hair day. I dealt with that issue.
22 8980 THE CHAIRPERSON: Lucky you. You
23 just want a bit of sympathy.
24 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
25 8981 MR. THIESSEN: You have mine. My car
StenoTran
1930
1 fogged up so badly coming into the parking lot that I
2 couldn't see.
3 8982 Commissioners, I thank you for the
4 opportunity to once again appear before you. I am
5 Willard Thiessen and I am here today as the President
6 of Trinity Television Incorporated. We produce a range
7 of Christian television programs that include a
8 nationally broadcast daily Christian talk show of some
9 22 years running, an award winning, internationally
10 broadcast children's program with over 100 episodes,
11 and a brand new, Manitoban, interactive talk TV show.
12 As you are well aware, we are also a persistent
13 applicant for a single faith owned broadcast licence,
14 most recently having applied in the Toronto market.
15 8983 Because of our past and present
16 interest in broadcasting and because of our work in the
17 field of religious and specifically Christian
18 programming, Trinity is able to offer a perspective
19 somewhat unique to these hearings and I sincerely thank
20 you for extending us a personal invitation to be a
21 voice in this hearing. You may refer to our written
22 submission for a more specific listing of our
23 recommendations, but today I have come to talk about
24 three points that are of utmost concern to us as a
25 religious program producer and we believe to you as the
StenoTran
1931
1 regulators of such programming.
2 8984 My first point is that Canadians have
3 a measurable thirst for Christian programming that the
4 Commission has only begun to satisfy.
5 8985 Secondly, Canadian content in
6 religious programming is desirable and needed and our
7 broadcasting system must deliberately foster its
8 production.
9 8986 Third, I seek clarity on the nature
10 of applying for religious broadcasting licences.
11 8987 But, in order for me to truly
12 communicate to you about these issues, it is necessary
13 that I first explain to you my understanding of
14 Christian programming, what it is, and to reconcile
15 this with the Commission's own definition of religious
16 programming.
17 8988 I see that religion really has two
18 facets: The first facet being the place, time, the
19 people that are part of where we express our formal
20 worship, teach and indoctrinate, and interrelate. This
21 may be a church, a synagogue, a temple, a quiet place,
22 a hall or even a home.
23 8989 Secondly, a second face, the way in
24 which faith is expressed throughout the life of the
25 person. This will include her/his interaction with
StenoTran
1932
1 people, motivations, the responses to life situations
2 and our goals.
3 8990 Traditionally, religious television
4 has been related to the first area, the formal
5 religious ceremony. But we would like to contend that
6 a faith expression will affect all areas of life.
7 Therefore, faith television programs should include all
8 the aspects of that second facet, the complete genres
9 of drama, variety, music, comedy, news, debate and
10 interaction, hospitality, sports, youth, et cetera.
11 Perspectives on educational issues, medical
12 breakthroughs, science and technology, the arts and
13 entertainment, all have religious implications, and are
14 grippingly interesting to viewers.
15 8991 People of faith express their beliefs
16 by how they choose to live. While the Commission has
17 captured this truth in their guiding definition of
18 "religious," namely, "Anything directly relating to,
19 inspired by, or arising from an individual's
20 relationship to divinity, including related morale or
21 ethnical issues," the implementation of the policy has
22 become one dimensional due to the religious program
23 category "040'. The rigidity of this category
24 radically limits programs to church related content,
25 the first facet above, which is only part of the whole.
StenoTran
1933
1 The simple solution might be to expand the "Religious"
2 program category into subcategories which reflect a
3 range of genres that would allow us to more accurately
4 describe our programs.
5 8992 If this recategorization does not
6 take place, not only as a regulatory process but more
7 importantly, philosophically, people of faith will
8 continue to be limited to working in the church context
9 and that is the opposite of what we at Trinity
10 Television are all about. The honest truth is, the
11 Christian life is one that is engaged in a process of
12 renewal by Christ, and the beliefs and values of such a
13 life are made real as the renewing takes place
14 throughout the whole of that person's life.
15 8993 Christian television is part of the
16 process of renewal. It encompasses the whole of life,
17 and at its root, is good, healthy and sound
18 programming. It is programming that is in line with
19 God given paradigms of communication and
20 interrelationship. It has a loving and free view of
21 reality and of that which is good and true. It is
22 about the church, but it is also about the world
23 outside the church, for God created them both and all
24 of creation is in need of renewal. I am speaking as a
25 Christian in this, but I believe that at the heart of
StenoTran
1934
1 this I also speak for numerous other faith groups.
2 8994 Just an aside, I have spoken to some
3 of my Hindu and Muslim friends in Toronto as we worked
4 on the Toronto application and they expressed
5 considerable interest in that very same area. We were
6 talking and we had a tremendous interrelationship, one
7 another, as to where we were concerned about the
8 opportunity for broadcasting our desire to speak into
9 these various areas.
10 8995 Now, if you are tempted to question
11 the truth or relevance of these ideas, I would
12 encourage you to look again at the study prepared by
13 COMPAS for CTV in June of 1998. When asked the
14 open-ended question, "What is the most important issue
15 in television programming?" 31 per cent of people said
16 that "The lack of morals and amount of violence on
17 television" was the single most important issue in
18 television programming today. This is compared to the
19 second highest consensus of 22 per cent who felt
20 quality was the most important issue.
21 8996 When asked, 96 per cent of this same
22 group of people said that it was important to improve
23 the quality of television programming. The survey did
24 not ask how important it was to improve morality, but
25 the math clearly infers that improving the moral
StenoTran
1935
1 climate of television is a most important issue facing
2 the Commission today.
3 8997 Further proof is found in an
4 Environics survey conducted by Trinity Television in
5 1996 in the Toronto marketplace. It found that 80 per
6 cent of the respondents wanted to watch programming
7 that reflected the spiritual renewal of the whole life.
8 The message is that people today want television
9 programming that is constructive, not destructive.
10 They want programs that do not harm their children,
11 their youth, and even their grown-up, adult selves,
12 with false or even perverse portrayals of reality.
13 People want programs that are sound and good, important
14 and helpful. To go back to the language introduced
15 earlier, people want programs that are in line with God
16 given paradigms of communications and interrelation.
17 They want programming that is life-renewing.
18 8998 Religion is not something that can be
19 fit into one day of the week. The popularity of that
20 idea has long faded away and it is time for Canadian
21 programming to reflect spiritual realities. More and
22 more people are rediscovering that they are in fact
23 spiritual creatures who have spiritual needs. They
24 have longings that cannot be met by physical gain.
25 They are getting in touch with themselves and the world
StenoTran
1936
1 around them. And as they gain awareness of the
2 importance of the spiritual, they are acting on their
3 beliefs rather than reacting to the physical events
4 around them. Religious beliefs are not beliefs to be
5 sidelined; they are foundational beliefs.
6 8999 As the Commission creates policies,
7 we believe that when you speak about Canadian culture
8 and community, you are talking about spiritual
9 foundations and religious expressions. Every culture
10 and every community expresses the twin ideas of "Who we
11 are" and "How we ought to live." Cultures and
12 communities are fundamentally religious. Every view
13 and every value a person holds comes from their heart
14 and their mind and is filtered and read through their
15 own belief system. They are religious expressions. As
16 you prepare the policies that take us into the next
17 millennium, you must keep these truths to the fore.
18 9000 Starting from such a premise will
19 result in a profitable return, both in the communities
20 and we believe to the broadcasters. There is no
21 question that viewers want good, wholesome programming;
22 programming that has been renewed by spiritual truth.
23 The question is "Where will it co,me from?"
24 9001 Where does it come from? One day I
25 would like that answer to be Canada. Why? Because I
StenoTran
1937
1 believe we are different. We are a distinct people
2 with distinct world views and we deserve to hear our
3 own stories. Right now, in Canada, Canadian
4 programming supplements American programming schedules.
5 Whom does it serve? Is this the ideal?
6 9002 As a Christian program producer I
7 need honest answers to these questions. I need answers
8 because these questions affect my organization on a
9 daily basis. We are not in this business to make
10 money. All we want is to make good, meaningful
11 programs and we have a passion to do this. But like
12 many other Canadian program producers there is a wall
13 between us and our objective and that wall is a lack of
14 funding and a lack of Canadian distribution; and I
15 referred to these problems in our written submission
16 earlier.
17 9003 MS BÉNARD: Mr. Thiessen, could I ask
18 you to slow down a bit. Our translators are having a
19 hard time following you.
20 9004 MR. THIESSEN: I am sorry. I tend to
21 speak too quickly on television as well. I am sorry.
22 9005 The Commission has effectively
23 implemented the religion broadcast policy to benefit
24 Canadians on a number of occasions. In 1995 the CRTC
25 licensed CJIL in Lethbridge, Alberta. In 1997 you
StenoTran
1938
1 refused approval of several American religious
2 satellite applicants, who were without a Canadian
3 sponsor. Recently, you licensed CTS, the Crossroads
4 Television System in the Toronto market. For all these
5 things, we are very grateful.
6 9006 However, there remain problems in the
7 application process that we would like to address. So
8 far we have been denied five times and it has been
9 rather humbling. But we still have a goal of obtaining
10 a religious broadcasting licence.
11 9007 We are a relatively small, non-profit
12 organization, and have spent hundreds of thousands of
13 dollars on the application process. With each
14 application we have made every effort to meet the
15 communicated requirements as outlined by the CRTC for
16 licence approval.
17 0910
18 9008 With all of our experience, some of
19 the Commission's expectations and priorities in
20 granting licences to religious broadcasters are still
21 unclear. The application process has impacted us. The
22 more we work at it, the more intent we find ourselves
23 desiring a station format that will best meet the broad
24 needs of the community, that will encourage Canadian
25 production, and that will minimize or preferably
StenoTran
1939
1 eliminate foreign brokered programming.
2 9009 In our most recent application for
3 Toronto, we evidenced a commitment to Canadian
4 programming by promising to have no foreign brokered
5 programming. This seemed, reasonably, to be an action
6 that made a significant contribution toward the goal of
7 the Broadcast Act.
8 9010 By contrast, CTS in their application
9 expressed the intention of selling a significant
10 proportion of brokered time to foreign programmers,
11 both in prime time and elsewhere in their schedule.
12 9011 We are uncertain of the Commission's
13 views on foreign programming, and the result of this
14 decision seems to compromise the Broadcast Act.
15 9012 We do plan to apply again. That is
16 why this is such a critical issue. We need to clearly
17 understand what your expectations are and how you
18 prioritize your concerns. What I am getting at is that
19 the CTS application now seems to be the template for a
20 winning religious broadcasting system.
21 9013 Is that in fact the case? If so, I
22 want to submit for your consideration that prime time
23 programming on CTS is prominently foreign and
24 prominently reflects the formal aspects of religion.
25 What we really need and hope for is an open dialogue
StenoTran
1940
1 with the Commission on the implication of the CTS
2 licence for future religious licence applications.
3 9014 We want to be religious; we want to
4 be Canadian; and we want to be about the whole of life.
5 We will continue to apply because we believe, and have
6 measurable reason to believe that that is what
7 Canadians want. And we hope that that is what the CRTC
8 wants and will respond to.
9 9015 In conclusion -- and I again refer
10 you to our written submissions -- I ask for five
11 things:
12 9016 1. Note that cultures and
13 communities are concerned with "Who we are" and "How we
14 ought to live" and are therefore fundamentally
15 religious. Likewise, be aware that the views and
16 values of a person or a group are, by definition,
17 religious expressions. Religion is not limited to
18 church but encompasses all of life.
19 9017 2. Create divisions within the "040"
20 category so that it better reflects spiritual reality
21 and allows religious programs to be more appropriately
22 described.
23 9018 3. Please protect Canadian
24 television. Strongly encourage all broadcasters to
25 become investors into excellent Canadian programming.
StenoTran
1941
1 9019 4. License additional Christian
2 broadcasters and so create a climate favourable to the
3 production of Canadian Christian programming -- or
4 should I say, Canadian religious programming.
5 9020 Furthermore, solidify and clarify
6 your licensing priorities to allow for confidence in
7 the application process.
8 9021 5. Please listen to the people of
9 Canada and favour public production funding of
10 programming that is good, moral and life renewing.
11 Discourage programming that is bad, false or perverse
12 in its view of reality.
13 9022 Our prayers are sincerely with you as
14 you endeavour to make these ideals more real.
15 9023 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.
16 Thiessen.
17 9024 Commissioner Cardozo, please.
18 9025 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you,
19 Madam Chair.
20 9026 Good morning, Mr. Thiessen. It is
21 nice to see you again. The last time we met was at the
22 licensing hearing that you talked about here, which was
23 last December.
24 9027 Of course, CTS, as I understand it,
25 was just launching last night.
StenoTran
1942
1 9028 MR. THIESSEN: Last night was their
2 opening day.
3 9029 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So it is
4 somewhat significant that we talk this morning.
5 9030 With regard to your specific
6 recommendation -- I made note of all of them, as we do.
7 In terms of the issues you have raised about wanting
8 clarification, this is an appropriate time for you to
9 raise them, but this is a forum where you answer the
10 questions, not us.
11 9031 So I will not answer those detailed
12 questions, and suggest that there are other avenues for
13 you to meet with the staff of the Commission to carry
14 on those discussions. We certainly make note of the
15 concerns you raised.
16 9032 What I would like to do with you in
17 particular, sir, given your background, your leadership
18 in religious broadcasting -- I hope I am not going too
19 far as to say certainly a leader in Canada in moral and
20 ethical issues.
21 9033 I want to get some of your
22 impressions -- if I can use the term -- sort of do a
23 bit of a "blue sky" exercise with you, raising some of
24 the issues you have raised. On page 5 you say:
25 "As the Commission creates
StenoTran
1943
1 policies, we believe that when
2 you speak about Canadian culture
3 and community, you are talking
4 about spiritual foundations and
5 religious expressions."
6 9034 I want to ask you, as somebody who is
7 both a force in religion and moral issues, as well as
8 on television, to give us your thoughts about how you
9 see Canadian programming at large.
10 9035 If you were the CRTC alone and you
11 had a few years to reconstruct the whole system, what
12 are the kinds of things you would like to see on TV?
13 9036 MR. THIESSEN: It is pretty broad.
14 Certainly we think about this a lot, not from your
15 perspective but from the perspective of what we would
16 like to see.
17 9037 One of the things that I think
18 disturbs us at times is the funding arrangements. We
19 refer to it in our letter. We believe that some of the
20 funding that has come through the Canadian system has
21 fostered programming or production of some programs
22 that are fringe programs and continue to speak to just
23 a fringe group of people.
24 9038 I don't want to particularly refer to
25 names of productions, but we have had some produced in
StenoTran
1944
1 Winnipeg that very few people watch, that really are
2 not financially viable.
3 9039 We have some great programs produced
4 in Canada. I have no problem with that. But we also
5 have some that are really fringe and the outside realm
6 of things. Some of these producers and directors
7 continue to get finances and continue to produce these
8 programs.
9 9040 One of our thoughts is that we would
10 like to see the Commission encourage programming that
11 becomes financially viable, where the programs
12 eventually start paying for themselves. Maybe the
13 directors and writers should get money at the beginning
14 of the thing, but eventually if they are not reflecting
15 the mores and desires of the country, that possibly
16 they not be encouraged to continue to produce some of
17 the programs that they do by accessing the funding
18 programs that are so much in place.
19 9041 I don't believe that putting
20 restrictions on producers, in the sense of deciding for
21 them what morality is, will help. I know that we can't
22 put a lot of restrictions in there.
23 9042 There is a dearth, a lack of --
24 9043 We tend to -- and I am looking at the
25 American side of things. Of course, they come in
StenoTran
1945
1 strongly, but the programs now are always pushing the
2 edge of what is acceptable in our society. We are
3 always pushing the edge. There is a part of all of us,
4 I guess, that likes to look at the dark side, like to
5 look at the seamy side of life.
6 9044 We think that that is the only area.
7 But I refer to the fact that programming like "Touched
8 by an Angel" is affecting our community in a strong
9 way.
10 9045 We were watching a movie last night
11 on one of our local channels. It was a movie aired on
12 a Canadian station. I don't know who produced the
13 movie. But it was very life giving, life producing and
14 I found myself very intrigued.
15 9046 I think there are many good programs
16 coming out of television now. I think there are, and I
17 encourage those kinds of things. But how, as a
18 Commission, you discourage or encourage -- encourage
19 the right and discourage the wrong -- I really don't
20 know.
21 9047 But somewhere there must be a way to
22 respond to what people -- maybe declaring; people are
23 motivating us to move to those things that build up
24 rather than tear down.
25 9048 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: What are your
StenoTran
1946
1 thoughts about the quote you have here from the COMPAS
2 CTV Poll:
3 "The lack of morals and amount
4 of violence on TV was the single
5 most important issue in TV
6 programming today."
7 9049 Do you agree with that?
8 9050 MR. THIESSEN: I think, by and large,
9 that is a concern. But I believe that television
10 reflects a community. I don't think it is television's
11 fault. I believe it also reflects the community.
12 9051 Speaking from across the line, I
13 noticed some of the commenting that was going on as a
14 result of the President's difficulties across the line.
15 Some of the commentators mentioned the fact that it
16 seems as though America is in a moral vacuum in many
17 ways. They were speaking about that.
18 9052 I think that, as a country, our
19 morality has been --
20 9053 As a religious person, I am very
21 concerned about where our morality is going.
22 9054 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: With the
23 coverage of the whole scandal, or whatever you call it,
24 in the United States, do you think we are different
25 from that?
StenoTran
1947
1 9055 If we had a similar situation here,
2 would it have been covered in the same exhaustive way?
3 9056 MR. THIESSEN: I don't think our
4 television commission or our television --
5 9057 Well, we may --
6 9058 I don't think we are quite as open
7 about some of those things. We do have the problems,
8 but I don't think we talk about them as openly as the
9 Americans do.
10 0920
11 9059 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Rightly so or
12 wrongly so?
13 9060 MR. THIESSEN: I don't know that it
14 always serves our best interests to reveal all of the
15 garbage that goes on because we don't talk about the
16 good things as much as we do about the bad things.
17 9061 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Yes.
18 9062 MR. THIESSEN: You know, as a result
19 I think we have such a focus -- I was actually wanting
20 to include that part in my statement, talking about the
21 American problems out there, where people say we are a
22 total moral vacuum.
23 9063 I personally don't believe we are,
24 but I think we tend not to be aware of where we are not
25 and we are not as aware of -- in fact, I believe
StenoTran
1948
1 there's a great deal of morality in Canada. I believe
2 there's a great deal of desire. There's a lot of
3 wonderful things happening. I would like to portray
4 those kinds of things.
5 9064 You know, the kinds of things that --
6 I mean Reader's Digest finds stories continually about
7 people that are worthy of note, that have made a mark
8 on their community. A child that has saved his
9 father's life is in one of the recent issue where a
10 four or five year old was out fishing with his dad.
11 His dad broke his leg and he found his way out.
12 9065 Those are such positive, wonderful
13 things. I believe our society is full of them. I
14 really believe that. There is a tremendous spiritual
15 desire that is rising in our community and I think in
16 some ways it is being reflected by Hollywood with
17 "Touched by an Angel", some of those areas, but I think
18 it's much stronger than the media is even aware of. I
19 think it's stronger than certainly Hollywood is aware
20 of. I think they are almost the last ones to find out
21 what's going on here.
22 9066 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: You think
23 television doesn't reflect enough of the positive.
24 9067 MR. THIESSEN: I don't think it does.
25 9068 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: How about news
StenoTran
1949
1 on television? I'm thinking both of Canadian news and
2 international news coverage of conflict.
3 9069 MR. THIESSEN: I would like to see
4 more positive news. I mean, I think news is absolutely
5 vital. I think it's wonderful, although the news
6 channels are -- well, some people talk about the fact
7 that we are always looking for news stories and we will
8 find anything sensational and project that.
9 9070 I personally am in favour of the news
10 channels. I think they're great, but I believe there
11 are some areas of positive news that I would like to --
12 you know, I don't think people are only looking for --
13 and we are. The news does pick up some of the other
14 stories, but I think there's more good stories to pick
15 up.
16 9071 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: When you are
17 talking about sort of the negative news or violence on
18 TV, one of the reasons it happens is that there's a
19 market for it.
20 9072 MR. THIESSEN: I know that.
21 Absolutely. It's just like why is Gerry Springer on?
22 Why do people watch Gerry Springer? It's very little
23 social redeeming value that comes out of it.
24 9073 I think that the people that are on
25 this program are fringe people. I don't think they
StenoTran
1950
1 represent the majority of people in our society. They
2 go out of their way to look for subject matter that
3 they believe is at the edge. I find that --
4 9074 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: What do you do
5 when it is a very popular program, and among young
6 people?
7 9075 MR. THIESSEN: Be aware of where it's
8 leading. I don't think the CRTC can legislate
9 morality. I don't believe this is the place to do it.
10 I don't believe that the legislature or that Parliament
11 can legislate it. I don't believe that our local
12 government can legislate. I don't believe that.
13 9076 I think by encouraging -- you know,
14 secular television, not secular, commercial television
15 is about money. It's about an audience. It's about
16 doing those things. PBS in the States is not about
17 that. PBS is about doing things are right.
18 9077 I believe religious television by and
19 large has the interest of the community at heart. I
20 really believe that. I don't believe that CTS or if we
21 were licensed or CGIL is not the intent -- I think that
22 sometimes we are perceived as being out to try to get
23 our message across which is to convert everyone to
24 becoming like we are.
25 9078 I don't think that that is the
StenoTran
1951
1 primary purpose. I believe that certainly is a part of
2 what goes on, but to try to bring help to society, all
3 of us wouldn't have the number of counsellors on the
4 telephone helping people -- I mean, we spend a lot of
5 resources in simply helping our community. There's a
6 lot of resources that are spent to try and encourage
7 people.
8 9079 We are not asking them what faith or
9 what area they are from at all, but it is trying and
10 desperately desiring to be an input of hope, of
11 encouragement, speaking into despair, speaking
12 possibility into people's lives.
13 9080 I really think that those are the
14 areas where the Commission can strongly help by helping
15 those -- and money isn't where it's at for us. We are
16 not out to make millions of dollars. We don't have
17 shareholders that are demanding -- the people that
18 support our program are giving their money freely.
19 They don't want 10 per cent back or 5 per cent or 20
20 per cent back at the end of the year.
21 9081 They are content to give it because
22 they believe that something that's happening is going
23 to affect their lives and I believe that religious
24 television could have a very strong input into our
25 society, I believe that, and without the requirement
StenoTran
1952
1 for funding.
2 9082 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So you are of
3 the view that with some of the, if I can call it,
4 harmful programming that you are concerned about that
5 the Commission shouldn't be bothered so much about
6 that, but that if we had more of your type of positive
7 programming that that would --
8 9083 MR. THIESSEN: I think that would
9 raise the water line. I think that providing an
10 alternative is always an important thing. Obviously
11 Canadians feel that way or they wouldn't have the CBC.
12 I mean, the CBC has always been an area that isn't
13 looking only at ratings, but trying to foster a
14 Canadian culture, encouraging those things that are
15 Canadian.
16 9084 I understand the view of the CBC is
17 to move more and more towards Canadian programming.
18 That is an expression of -- now, that's helping a
19 Canadian culture. That is a concern of the Canadian
20 government. Oddly, the similar concern, you say, how
21 do I now help not just Canadian culture which I believe
22 does include a religious content?
23 9085 You can't separate culture and faith.
24 It's impossible to separate those. It's been kind of a
25 no, no. It has been a taboo subject to actually
StenoTran
1953
1 encourage the faith side of things.
2 9086 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: But we do sort
3 of have this, which is the American notion of
4 separating church and state. Doesn't that --
5 9087 MR. THIESSEN: I think that's a
6 very -- we have got this notion that we are separating
7 it. What we are doing is excluding it. I don't think
8 you separate faith from life because everything we all
9 do are faith perspective and motivates what we do. All
10 of us. There's not a person that isn't motivated or we
11 live our lives out of it, the way we spend our money.
12 9088 The job I take is affected by my
13 faith or by my perspective of living. I think we
14 should acknowledge that. I think that there's a fear
15 of acknowledging faith in our society. There's a fear
16 of admitting that it's real, a fear of admitting that
17 somehow the intellectual side of things of our society
18 have become so prominent that we have forgotten what's
19 at the heart is the issue. I could get passionate on
20 this.
21 9089 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I'm convinced
22 that if we did a poll of young children and asked them
23 who's name comes to mind at Christmas time, I think
24 most kids would pick Santa Claus over Jesus Christ.
25 9090 MR. THIESSEN: Precisely, which is
StenoTran
1954
1 the commercial over the faith side.
2 9091 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Right. Could
3 we talk for a couple of minutes about children's
4 programming. You have mentioned in your written
5 submission that you have got a new children's show
6 called "Sun Shiny Day".
7 9092 MR. THIESSEN: Yes.
8 9093 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Am I
9 pronouncing that right?
10 9094 MR. THIESSEN: "Sun Shiny Day" is
11 absolutely right.
12 9095 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay. Tell me
13 what that's about and what you are doing in that that
14 is not out there already.
15 9096 MR. THIESSEN: "Sun Shiny Day" is --
16 it's more about the personalities that put shows
17 together than anything else. It's actually our
18 daughter that produces the program. She has won some
19 awards on it in the United States, not in Canada --
20 9097 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: It's your
21 "Daughter Shiny Day".
22 9098 MR. THIESSEN: It's my daughter. She
23 is a sun shiny day, yes.
24 9099 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay.
25 9100 MR. THIESSEN: She has got a very
StenoTran
1955
1 bright personality. She writes a lot of great music
2 for children. She hosts the program, works with
3 puppets, works with kids and talks about life from a
4 faith encouragement perspective, not just -- I think
5 that, you know, there's a lot of things about take
6 it -- you know, don't do this, do that. There's that
7 kind of programming.
8 9101 There's an element that I think faith
9 brings into programming where there's hope. I believe
10 that the "Sun Shiny Day" brings out a dimension of
11 possibility and of hope that I think makes it different
12 or gives it a different perspective that good
13 Christian --- that good children's programming --
14 there's great children's programming out there that is,
15 you know, is morally right and teaches values and so
16 on.
17 9102 There's an element I think faith can
18 bring which produces possibilities into people's lives
19 and that's something I believe the program does
20 strongly. The response we have had -- it's been airing
21 in some areas of the former Soviet Union.
22 9103 We are working with some people out
23 there that come back and mention how positively the
24 program is viewed by the household which is surprising
25 because out here it is children that would watch the
StenoTran
1956
1 programming.
2 9104 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Yes. You have
3 talked a bit about Canadian culture and television
4 reflecting that. What are your thoughts about whether
5 television does justice to reflecting Canada and
6 building or encouraging a sense of nationhood and who
7 we are. Can we do that given the American channels
8 that we have?
9 9105 MR. THIESSEN: I think we just are --
10 I think we are working at it. You know, there's a
11 desire in some people's minds and hearts across this
12 land to bring a sense of national unity or of working
13 together. I speak from my point of view on our
14 program. We have had a number of people on the "It's
15 You" day program, the daily program.
16 9106 We have had people from France -- I
17 mean from the French part of our country come out and
18 speak. We have had people from Hull, from Montreal.
19 For faith people, this is an issue, what our country
20 does. This is an issue for us. We are very concerned
21 about division.
22 9107 Faith to us means resolution. It
23 means working together. It means bringing down walls
24 of division among us.
25 0935
StenoTran
1957
1 9108 I believe that faith, perspectives on
2 television can help to bring unity to our country. I
3 believe that. I don't think we have always seen that
4 in the past. I think that some faith that people --
5 and I think the problem is we have had particular
6 people that have been maybe very vocal and have said
7 things that don't reflect the overall community, the
8 faith community, but I find within the faith community
9 a strong desire of working together, of understanding
10 one another.
11 9109 I personally -- I mentioned this at
12 the hearings in Toronto, that the very fact that we
13 were required to present a balanced programming format
14 to the Commission as a Christian station we would have
15 to bring people from other faiths to work alongside of
16 us. That very thing has required me to rub shoulders
17 with people I would not have rubbed shoulders with in a
18 natural part of life. Those relationships are going on
19 today.
20 9110 We don't have an application and I
21 will never have one in Toronto, and yet I have
22 continued a relationship with some of the people that
23 came out of that process because I have never
24 understood something I never understood before. Now,
25 there is where you have done something to bring
StenoTran
1958
1 something, not to the whole nation, but to my heart
2 that I think is a positive thing.
3 9111 Often we want to change everybody. I
4 think life is about changing individuals, working with
5 individual hearts, working with individual lives. If
6 Christian television -- if we were looking only at the
7 masses, I would be very discouraged about going in and
8 saying we are going to change our whole world.
9 9112 But I believe we can change
10 individual lives. I think we can change perspectives
11 for some people and bring hope to some people that are
12 in absolute despair today. I believe they can be
13 helped. I think that is what we are saying, that there
14 is somebody we want to speak to. We are speaking to
15 some and with the opportunity we would speak to more.
16 9113 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Speaking about
17 crossing cultural lines, we had a presentation a couple
18 of days ago by Television Northern Canada, which is an
19 aboriginal service. They were talking about the need
20 for Canadian television to better reflect aboriginal
21 peoples and we were trying to think of examples of
22 where television does reflect aboriginal peoples in a
23 positive light. We didn't have many thoughts. What
24 are your thoughts about that question, whether
25 television can or should reflect aboriginal people and
StenoTran
1959
1 whether faith programming can do anything in that area?
2 9114 MR. THIESSEN: Yes. I think it
3 should. I think, obviously, there are a few programs
4 that reflect some of the aboriginal perspectives that I
5 have seen at various times. I know there are a number
6 of aboriginal people that want or will be on television
7 more than are already.
8 9115 Certainly when we were making our
9 application we had a number of leaders in the
10 aboriginal community that expressed a strong desire in
11 knowing who they are and knowing what their impact is
12 in the communities that they work in today, I believe
13 they would make excellent producers of programs that
14 would reflect their community and the desires that they
15 have for their community.
16 9116 I believe television can have a very
17 positive input in the lives of people, just as I
18 believe it can have a negative input. I believe it is
19 morally relevant. Television is that. It is
20 culturally relevant because it reflects us as people.
21 9117 Jerry Springer does reflect a part of
22 our society and some of us want to know what is going
23 on there obviously. But I believe that there are also
24 other people that are looking at other programming and
25 it may not be the majority, but there are people
StenoTran
1960
1 looking at other programs and they are being affected.
2 I believe they are the people that if you met them in
3 the community they are the ones that are building our
4 communities up. They are the ones that are a very
5 positive force for our community.
6 9118 I really believe that and the people
7 that are looking for those values are the ones that are
8 making a mark and a difference in our society in a
9 strong way.
10 9119 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you very
11 much. That has really helped us understand some of
12 these wider issues from the perspective that you have
13 been working in. I hope you keep in touch with us.
14 You talked about templates. Some people may interpret
15 things to be templates, but I think as the decision in
16 Toronto was a competitive process there will always be
17 competitive processes I think, so keep that in mind
18 too. But keep in touch with us and keep reminding us
19 of the issues that you have raised today. Thank you
20 very much.
21 9120 MR. THIESSEN: Thank you very much,
22 Commissioners.
23 9121 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thank you,
24 Madam Chair.
25 9122 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
StenoTran
1961
1 9123 Commissioner Pennefather.
2 9124 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Good
3 morning.
4 9125 I would like to also take advantage
5 of you being here just to briefly look at another
6 component of television. I noticed here you talk about
7 the paradigm communication and inter-relation and then
8 you have launched a new interactive talk TV show.
9 9126 What are your thoughts on television
10 as a communication among people? Is this a growing
11 need where, in addition to the voyeuresque show, is
12 there a place that we should be considering more
13 carefully for the kind of program that allows people to
14 talk to each other?
15 9127 MR. THIESSEN: We are just in the
16 process. This is just happening. A local station
17 offered us an hour of time a day and we are very
18 reasonable. In fact, they are helping us get going on
19 this. Eventually they hope to get some commercial
20 benefit out of it, but they are actually investing in
21 us at this time.
22 9128 We have been talking about this and
23 we did some -- speaking of the community, talked about
24 what we wanted to get at here. We found a strong
25 response from our community, saying we would like to
StenoTran
1962
1 find opportunity to interact with people.
2 9129 Now, it is going to be telephone
3 interaction at this point in time. We still don't have
4 the internet at the place where we -- and I think that
5 day will come, where people will log on and we may not
6 get a sharp picture all the time, but I think that day
7 is coming.
8 9130 But there is a desire and I think an
9 interest. We tend to have only specialists speak to
10 us. We have got the impression that anyone that isn't
11 a specialist can't make a difference in our world. I
12 think the majority of the work that is done in our
13 world is done by normal people that aren't specialists.
14 9131 Children are raised by normal moms,
15 not by psychologists and sociologists. Most of them
16 are raising wonderful kids. The impact that is made in
17 our community is made by -- I mean the greatest idea --
18 a lot of the good ideas come out of just normal people
19 that are working behind the scenes in factories. Some
20 of the brightest ideas come out of guys that are
21 working on the floor. As an engineer when I was
22 working, back in the days designing rocket payloads, I
23 went to the technicians because they knew how it fit.
24 We could design it, but they knew how it fit. I think
25 there is a whole world out there that knows how things
StenoTran
1963
1 fit because they are working it.
2 9132 I believe interactive television --
3 we want to interact. The more populous we become, it
4 seems the more separated we are. We interacted more on
5 the farm back in the old days when we lived a mile
6 apart than we do when we live -- I can throw a stone
7 past four houses on my street and we don't talk enough.
8 I think there is a longing in the hearts of people to
9 communicate, just a desperate desire to know that they
10 have a voice, to know that they have value, to know
11 that they have worth.
12 9133 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you
13 very much.
14 9134 Thank you, Madam Chair.
15 9135 Counsel.
16 9136 MS PATTERSON: Thank you, Madam
17 Chair.
18 9137 Good morning, Mr. Thiessen.
19 9138 MR. THIESSEN: Good morning.
20 9139 MS PATTERSON: In your written
21 submission and also this morning in your oral
22 presentation to the Commission you mentioned creating
23 divisions within the 040 category, so that it better
24 reflects spiritual reality and allows religious
25 programs to be more appropriately described. I am
StenoTran
1964
1 wondering if you have a specific proposal for the
2 expansion of the religious programming category into
3 subcategories?
4 9140 MR. THIESSEN: Actually, I would like
5 to see them have virtually the same subcategories that
6 the Commission has for other programs.
7 9141 For instance, in our application for
8 the station in Toronto we wanted to show that our
9 station would reflect a diversity of programming, that
10 we showed news, we showed drama, we showed other things
11 and yet as a religious station we are required to show
12 040 for everything.
13 9142 But we felt that a station that
14 projects a diversity of programming would have greater
15 interest for the community and we would like to reflect
16 that in our application. So that's where -- you know,
17 children's programming, et cetera, just as we show it
18 in the -- something to that nature we think would be
19 beneficial in reflecting what we would like to do in an
20 application.
21 9143 MS PATTERSON: So would it be fair to
22 say that at page 2 of your oral presentation today,
23 down at the bottom you list a group of genres, would
24 those reflect the type of subcategories that you are
25 thinking of?
StenoTran
1965
1 9144 MR. THIESSEN: I think that's maybe
2 further than -- what is it, 12 or 13 in the Commission
3 right now? It has been a while since I looked at
4 these.
5 9145 I wouldn't say this is the full
6 extent, but to some degree reflecting the kinds of
7 programming possibilities, yes.
8 9146 MS PATTERSON: Thank you.
9 9147 Thank you, Madam Chair.
10 9148 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
11 9149 Thank you, Mr. Thiessen.
12 9150 I hope we get a sunshiny day later.
13 9151 MR. THIESSEN: It is coming. It is
14 going to be windy, but sunny. Thank you.
15 9152 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
16 9153 Madam Secretary, would you invite the
17 next participant, please.
18 9154 MS BÉNARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
19 9155 The next presentation will be by la
20 Fédération nationale des associations de consommateurs
21 du Québec, the National Anti-poverty Organization, One
22 Voice, The Canadian Seniors Network and Rural Dignity.
23 I would invite Mr. Reddick to please come forward.
24 9156 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, Madam
25 Vallée and Mr. Reddick. Proceed when you are ready.
StenoTran
1966
1 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
2 9157 MR. REDDICK: Hi. How are you this
3 morning?
4 9158 THE CHAIRPERSON: We are fine,
5 despite the bad hair day.
6 9159 MR. REDDICK: My name is Andrew
7 Reddick and I am with the Public Interest Advocacy
8 Centre. We are representing FNACQ et al today. With
9 me today is Marie Vallée of FNACQ.
10 9160 First., we would like to thank the
11 Commission for inviting us to appear today. This is an
12 important policy proceeding and it will shape our
13 broadcasting system for years to come. With limited
14 resources we have not been able to address all the
15 issues raised by the Commission and other parties in
16 this proceeding.
17 9161 In our written submissions we
18 addressed a number of issued raised by the Commission
19 which we think are of particular concern to our groups
20 and we are going to address some of those today.
21 9162 In general with respect to matters
22 relating to content/viewing requirements,
23 contributions, local expression and underrepresented
24 categories, FNACQ et all believe that these policies
25 have been very successful and should be continued as we
StenoTran
1967
1 move forward. If there is to be change, it should be
2 progressive as opposed to regressive in nature. As
3 such, we generally support increasing levels of
4 contribution to these initiatives.
5 9163 Conventional over-the-air
6 broadcasting constitutes a universally basic
7 broadcasting service for most Canadians. For as much
8 as 25 per cent of households, over-the-air broadcasting
9 is their only form of television service. In addition,
10 a number of DTH subscribers are also using over-the-air
11 signals to complement their satellite service with
12 local programming.
13 9164 Policy or regulations emanating from
14 this proceeding should confirm and not alter the
15 ability of Canadians to receive signals using this
16 technology. While the Commission did not raise this
17 issue in the Public Notice, we feel that the issue
18 needs to be addressed for two main reasons.
19 9165 First, Industry Canada is about to
20 embark on a process of selling off publicly-owned
21 spectrum through an auction process. While their
22 interests are currently focused on telecommunications,
23 with the pending move to digital broadcasting, spectrum
24 currently used for over-the-air analog broadcasting
25 could become an attractive resource for the merchants
StenoTran
1968
1 of Industry Canada.
2 9166 Secondly, there is a cost incurred by
3 broadcasters to provide over-the-air signals. With
4 many citizens in markets receiving signals by cable or
5 other means, there may be growing reluctance by some
6 broadcasters to continue an over-the-air signal. We do
7 not believe that it is the policy of the Commission or
8 the Government of Canada to cut off basic television
9 service over-the-air for several million Canadians and
10 would like to see this reaffirmed by the Commission as
11 part of the decision from this proceeding.
12 9167 In section 22 of the Public Notice,
13 the Commission asked whether other elements should be
14 contributing to the development of Canadian programs.
15 In the past, the Commission has indicated that it would
16 be able to deal with matters relating to convergence
17 without specific amendments to the Broadcasting or
18 Telecommunications Acts. With the development of new
19 forms of electronic content, including Canadian
20 cultural content, the Commission may need to revisit
21 the definition of program.
22 9168 Part of the problem we are facing is
23 that there is a lack of a substantive and inclusive
24 national Canadian content policy framework which
25 addresses the development and availability of the
StenoTran
1969
1 different forms of Canadian content, such as
2 traditional programming and new forms of electronic
3 content, in a coherent manner. Where the government
4 chooses not to make policy, the matter often falls to
5 the Commission and it may in this case.
6 9169 Increasingly, programming and
7 distribution undertakings, and telecommunication
8 providers are providing services and content which
9 either through the means of delivery or in the form of
10 content, straddle both Acts. As well, exempt and
11 non-programming services, commercials ISPs,
12 tele-communications providers and others are developing
13 and distributing new forms of content, often integrated
14 or jointly marketed with conventional forms of content,
15 such as broadcast programming.
16 9170 This content is also being packaged
17 and marketed in what the industry calls "channels" or
18 "programming." With the blurring of these lines, not
19 only does the concept of program need to be revisited
20 under a broader policy umbrella of 'content,' but these
21 commercial providers should be contributing to the
22 development and availability of new forms of Canadian
23 content.
24 9171 As a start, FNACQ et al submit that,
25 in a comparable methodology to that imposed on
StenoTran
1970
1 Broadcasting Distribution Undertakings and in
2 consideration that broadcast licensees are already
3 required to make contributions to the system, that
4 telecommunications carriers and commercial ISPs should
5 be contributing up to 5 per cent of gross annual
6 revenues to facilitate access and to support new forms
7 of content and programming.
8 9172 In priority, these funds should be
9 used, first, for facilitating affordable technical
10 access to the information highway as this relates to
11 the governments Connecting Canada policy agenda;
12 secondly, the development of non-profit Canadian
13 cultural, historical, citizenship and related
14 information resources in new electronic formats and,
15 thirdly, to augment the multimedia fund for the
16 development of other Canadian cultural content.
17 9173 In section 41 of the Public Notice,
18 the Commission raised the issue of concentration of
19 ownership. FNACQ et al submit that it is important for
20 the Commission to have a policy of limiting a person to
21 ownership of no more than one over-the-air television
22 station in a market. Concentration of ownership in
23 this, and other areas of the industry, risks eroding
24 the diversity of expression and information, as well as
25 undermining the notion of excellent in programming
StenoTran
1971
1 being realized through competition.
2 9174 Beyond the issue of concentration of
3 ownership at the local level, this should also be a
4 major policy concern to the Commission at the regional
5 and national levels.
6 9175 While FNACQ et al appreciate the
7 industry's arguments of the need to vertically and
8 horizontally integrate in order to be competitively and
9 economically viable, rules and limits need to be
10 applied, even if on a case-by-case basis, to ensure
11 that our broader public interest, industrial, cultural
12 and social policy objectives are achieved. Again,
13 central to this concern are the issues of competition
14 and diversity of expression.
15 9176 It is also important that the
16 Commission establish clear rules about levels of
17 concentration of ownership of across production,
18 broadcasting and distribution sectors, given the
19 increasing liberalizing trade policies of Canada.
20 Without specific policies and rules for the Canadian
21 marketplace, if substantive foreign ownership is
22 permitted at some point in the future, the industry and
23 corporate structures and practices of other
24 jurisdictions which may not complement our system, may
25 come to be imposed without out ability to pursue any
StenoTran
1972
1 recourse.
2 9177 With respect to local programming,
3 local stations and large multi-station groups, FNACQ et
4 al submit that it is necessary to continue the
5 provision of high quality local services by requiring
6 local stations to broadcast minimum quantities of local
7 news and information.
8 9178 An important issue for consumers is
9 also the move to digital broadcasting. We believe that
10 there should not be a quick move to digital-only
11 broadcasting. Proposals and recommendations about
12 digital broadcasting to date, have been poorly
13 researched and poorly thought out., with much of the
14 financial projections approximating "casino
15 economics" -- a roll of the dice and guesswork using
16 consumers' money in the final analysis.
17 9179 In the near term, digital will be an
18 extremely expensive option. A quick switch would cut
19 off television service for millions of Canadians who
20 could not afford the equipment. Again, we do not take
21 this to be the policy of the Canadian government or the
22 CRTC.
23 9180 FNACQ et al recommend that rather
24 than establishing a specific date for the cessation of
25 analog signalling, dual signalling of analog and
StenoTran
1973
1 digital be provided until a threshold of at least 90
2 per cent of consumers have adopted digital equipment,
3 whether using a digital television or a set-top box
4 capable of converting this signal to analog. At such
5 time, the Commissioner should hold a public review of
6 whether a complete switch to digital should be made.
7 9181 As final comments, we would like to
8 address a proposal made last week by the Canadian
9 Association of Broadcasters about measuring the success
10 of Canadian programming using a ratings system or
11 levels of viewership. It would appear that their
12 intentions for the health of Canadian content and
13 programming are good, but we find the proposal of a
14 viewership or ratings criteria coupled with an
15 apparently voluntaristic approach for contributions in
16 obtaining Canadian content to be inappropriate and not
17 sound.
18 9182 The development of healthy Canadian
19 production and broadcasting sectors has been based on
20 obligations, performance requirements and subsidies of
21 different forms. These tools are not unique to the
22 sector in our society, or even to Canada. These are
23 common tools of governance which have been, and will
24 continue to be necessary to achieve a range and balance
25 of national economic, industrial, cultural and social
StenoTran
1974
1 goals.
2 9183 It would appear in reading the
3 submission that the CAB is proposing that broadcasters
4 keep the money, the subsidies, but not the obligations
5 and required performance activities. Instead, we are
6 to go on faith that they will deliver, but we will
7 assess success based on a ratings system of viewership.
8 9184 We feel that obligations, performance
9 requirements and subsidies will continue to be an
10 important and necessary part of our system, given
11 domestic realities and in terms of trends in
12 international trade agreements. If the current
13 framework is considered a regulatory minimum by the
14 broadcasters, if they are so committed to the
15 development of the system, there is no reason that they
16 cannot come forward under the existing regime with
17 goals and implementation plans to increase quality and
18 viewership. Nothing needs to be changed to do this,
19 and guarantees will continue in the system through
20 regulation that has proven to be a great success.
21 9185 A ratings approach is an economics
22 tool used to measure consumption, but it is not
23 appropriate for Canadian content in this or other
24 areas. There are certainly economic costs to the
25 various initiatives which support Canadian content.
StenoTran
1975
1 But the value and importance of our cultural products
2 and artifacts are measured using social, cultural and
3 political criteria as much, or at times more so than
4 economic or ratings criteria.
5 9186 If we measured the success of the
6 development of Canadian literature based on readership
7 or viewership, then instead of the work of Davies,
8 Laurence, Tremblay and others, our libraries would
9 stock comic books, because more people have probably
10 read them. It took 30 years to develop Canadian texts
11 in the areas of geography, history, the social sciences
12 and politics, so we would know something about our
13 country in addition to the Spanish Armada, the U.S.
14 Civil War and the capitals of U.S. states. A majority
15 of Canadians may not read these, but their value is
16 measured by other, considered more important criteria.
17 9187 We also feel that a viewership or
18 ratings model would contravene the Broadcasting Act.
19 For example, would subsection 3(d) need to be rewritten
20 to state that the Canadian broadcasting system should
21 encourage the development of Canadian expression by
22 providing a wide range of programming that reflects
23 Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas and values and
24 artistic creativity, where the broadcaster wants or
25 levels of viewership warrant? Or would subsection
StenoTran
1976
1 3(i), the programming provided by the Canadian
2 broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive,
3 providing a balance of information, enlightenment and
4 entertainment for men, women and children of all ages,
5 interests and tastes where broadcasters want or levels
6 of viewership warrant?
7 0955
8 9188 There are also international trade
9 dimensions to this issue. In recent trade
10 negotiations, such as the MAI, Canada's negotiators
11 have been underachieving with respect to exemptions and
12 reservations in the areas of broadcasting and
13 telecommunications.
14 9189 For example, there were no
15 substantive Canadian reservations put forward for
16 culture. For telecommunications, the 10-year old NAFTA
17 reservations were offered up. In telecommunications,
18 two main changes have occurred since NAFTA: the
19 Internet and multimedia.
20 9190 We have yet to establish a broad
21 Canadian cultural and content policy framework in the
22 area of telecommunications in the context of
23 maintaining national integrity in this area in relation
24 to freer trade.
25 9191 In broadcasting, if we weaken or
StenoTran
1977
1 remove some or all of our existing obligations,
2 performance requirements or subsidies, even to just
3 address domestic considerations as part of this
4 proceeding, then they are gone forever under trade
5 agreements. We may not have them, or the ability to
6 redesign them in future as needed, with the changing
7 realities of our trade relations.
8 9192 We do not need to help the Jack
9 Valenti's of the world in this process.
10 9193 That concludes the presentation of
11 FNACQ et al.
12 9194 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.
13 Reddick.
14 9195 I will direct my questions to both of
15 you, and feel free to respond in either language, as
16 you see fit.
17 9196 You have been a little bit more
18 specific about your concerns this morning -- as you
19 were in your written presentation -- but they remain:
20 9197 (1) a fear that those consumers who
21 would not have programming provided to them unless they
22 subscribe to a paid distribution method of reception;
23 9198 (2) the concern that local
24 programming, which the consumer is interested in, in
25 your view, should be diminished;
StenoTran
1978
1 9199 (3) that any emphasis on certain
2 under-represented categories may be at the expense of
3 truly local programming would be another concern of
4 yours; and also concentration of ownership.
5 9200 (4) a fourth concern I see is that as
6 various methods of creating content are used, a greater
7 number of industrial participants, or industry
8 participants, be made to provide funds for the
9 production of Canadian programming.
10 9201 Would that be fair?
11 9202 MR. REDDICK: Yes.
12 9203 THE CHAIRPERSON: If we start with
13 your concern that over-the-air broadcasting, never mind
14 its quality but that its actual availability be
15 maintained, are you concerned that broadcasters would
16 shut off their transmitter and feed their programming
17 to a distribution system; that is, wire or possibly
18 satellite?
19 9204 MR. REDDICK: Yes. Eight years ago,
20 when I was a policy advisor to the federal government,
21 the idea of auctioning of spectrum, while it was
22 abhorrent to everybody in government, now it has
23 happened. So anything is possible.
24 9205 When I look at that issue, for many
25 broadcasters it is very important to have the off-air
StenoTran
1979
1 signal AC as an important part of its service. For
2 others, particulary in large urban centres where the
3 majority of the citizens receive signalling through
4 cable, they may look at that and say: "Well, it costs
5 us a lot to run a transmitter service. Maybe we don't
6 need to do this. Maybe for that 5 percent in this
7 city, we don't need to do that."
8 9206 I think the precedent would be wrong.
9 It is basic service in broadcasting, in our view.
10 9207 Cable is not a basic service, but
11 of-air is basic.
12 9208 THE CHAIRPERSON: Considering that 25
13 percent of the population is not subscribing to cable,
14 and suppose that some of the new methods of delivery,
15 such as DTH, do succeed in diminishing the number of
16 subscribers who rely on cable -- DTH is not going to
17 offer them a local programming station, at the moment
18 anyway -- I have difficulty with your fear.
19 9209 And if you are saying that the
20 auctioning of spectrum is what would lead to that, the
21 government would be shooting itself in the foot if it
22 auctions these frequencies at a price that the
23 broadcaster is going to find so outrageous as to shut
24 down its transmitter.
25 9210 The policy would not work very well,
StenoTran
1980
1 would it, if the aim is to make money with the sale of
2 frequencies?
3 9211 I find it difficult to see that as a
4 big concern.
5 9212 MR. REDDICK: We have tried that
6 argument ourselves sometimes.
7 9213 One other point, stepping back a bit.
8 9214 In rural areas, I think roughly half
9 of the population has cable, and the rest rely on
10 off-air signalling. While DTH is an option for some,
11 it is still a very expensive option in terms of the
12 equipment and the monthly service; and also you do not
13 get the local programming.
14 9215 That is very important for rural
15 Canadians.
16 9216 Mme VALLÉE: Je pense aussi qu'il ne
17 faut pas oublier que dans plusieurs villes
18 canadiennes -- je pense entre autres à Québec et à
19 certaines parties de Montréal -- les gens sont abonnés
20 au câble parce qu'ils n'ont pas d'autre choix, parce
21 que les signaux par air n'arrivent pas à transmettre...
22 je ne dirais même pas de la qualité, mais juste de la
23 neige. Alors il faut quand même ne pas oublier cet
24 aspect-là de l'équation, que des gens sont pratiquement
25 abonnés de force au câble, parce qu'ils n'ont pas de
StenoTran
1981
1 réception.
2 9217 Pour nous, la question de l'accès
3 dans les zones rurales est une question fondamentale,
4 mais aussi je pense que les statistiques qu'on a sont
5 peut-être un peu biaisées dû au fait que déjà la
6 qualité de transmission a baissé, et c'est pour ça
7 qu'on est quand même extrêmement préoccupé par le fait
8 qu'il faut que ça demeure du service de base, la
9 transmission de la programmation télévisuelle, par la
10 voie des airs.
11 9218 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Vous voulez dire par
12 ondes hertziennes.
13 9219 Mme VALLÉE: C'est ça.
14 9220 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et c'est justement ce
15 qui serait votre inquiétude, c'est que pour une raison
16 ou une autre, incluant la vente du spectre, les
17 télédiffuseurs fermeraient leurs transmetteurs et
18 apporteraient leur signal...
19 9221 Mme VALLÉE: C'est ça, à la tête de
20 ligne du câblo ou par...
21 9222 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ou d'une autre...
22 9223 Mme VALLÉE: C'est ça. Ou d'un autre
23 dispositif de...
24 9224 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Si c'est au
25 satellite, c'est très dispendieux pour une station
StenoTran
1982
1 hertzienne.
2 9225 Mme VALLÉE: Effectivement.
3 9226 Il ne faut pas oublier qu'il y a des
4 coûts pour l'industrie, mais ces coûts-là ultimement
5 sont toujours répercutés dans le tarif que le
6 consommateur paye, et actuellement beaucoup des
7 installations ont été subventionnées, ou sont déjà
8 payées. Il faut les maintenir, il faut probablement
9 les moderniser, mais c'est probablement moins cher
10 ultimement pour le consommateur, cette
11 modernisation-là, que de devoir payer pour soit la
12 diffusion directe par satellite ou même le câble, parce
13 que dans certains cas le câble n'est même pas offert.
14 9227 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Passons maintenant à
15 votre inquiétude au sujet du contenu qui est offert par
16 les stations hertziennes, assumant qu'on continue à les
17 recevoir et qu'il n'y a pas le problème que vous
18 soulevez au niveau technologique.
19 9228 Et votre présentation orale et votre
20 présentation écrite s'inquiètent que la programmation
21 locale disparaisse des stations hertziennes, et je vous
22 avoue que pendant nos réunions avec le public en juin
23 nous avons eu évidemment beaucoup de représentations à
24 cet effet.
25 9229 Est-ce que vous savez qu'en ce moment
StenoTran
1983
1 les stations doivent présenter à leur antenne des
2 nouvelles?
3 9230 Mme VALLÉE: Oui, on est au courant
4 qu'elles doivent présenter des nouvelles locales, mais
5 c'est généralement leur définition de "locales" qui
6 prime, et dans certains cas, je vais prendre au Québec,
7 c'est extrêmement limité, ce qu'ils offrent comme
8 contenu local. Si c'est dix minutes sur une diffusion
9 d'une heure, ce n'est pas énorme, vous conviendrez avec
10 moi.
11 9231 MR. REDDICK: One thing I would like
12 to add is that one of our concerns about local content
13 is that as you move to larger station owner groups or
14 takeovers in the industry, the question is: How much
15 incentive is there to produce content or news at
16 national or regional levels as opposed to the local
17 level?
18 9232 One of our concerns is that as those
19 kinds of trends in the industry take place, it is
20 important to make sure that there is diversity of
21 programming and a substantive amount of local
22 production continuing.
23 9233 So independent stations where they
24 may be owned within the community is one thing; but
25 where they become part of a national chain, if you
StenoTran
1984
1 will, then we have some concern as to what happens to
2 diversity of content.
3 9234 THE CHAIRPERSON: In your written
4 submission, at page 4, paragraph 8, you talk about the
5 need to have regulations and incentives which would
6 improve the availability of quality Canadian content in
7 peak viewing hours.
8 9235 And you say that you have no specific
9 recommendations about new regulations or incentives at
10 that time.
11 9236 I was going to ask you whether having
12 followed the hearing, if you did, and having heard
13 various presentations, or knowing about various
14 presentations, whether you have any more comments to
15 make.
16 9237 You did this morning refer to and
17 discount the CAB's use of viewership levels as an
18 incentive or regulatory mechanism.
19 9238 You seem to have understood that the
20 CAB is asking to be relieved of all the regulations it
21 is under now, which is not quite fair. I believe the
22 CAB's position was to keep the A and B choice -- which
23 refer to either spending requirements or exhibition
24 requirements -- albeit with some relaxation related to
25 promotion, advertising, credits for specific types of
StenoTran
1985
1 programming, but then not asking for more, the way the
2 producers are asking for more; instead, putting this
3 viewership goal as a grid or incentive to ensure that
4 we improve the quality and viewership of Canadian
5 content.
6 9239 Do you have any other comment now
7 about what the Commission should do with regard to
8 certain types of programming in peak viewing hours?
9 9240 MR. REDDICK: A couple of comments.
10 9241 First, we have not had a chance to
11 get deeply involved in this proceeding because, without
12 intervenor cost awards, we cannot devote the time.
13 9242 We devote about 20 percent of our
14 resources to pro bono work each year --
15 9243 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just as I was about
16 to say: "We are very pleased to see you participating
17 in broadcasting. I hope that you enjoy yourself and
18 that you come back."
19 9244 MR. REDDICK: So I will move on from
20 that point.
21 9245 THE CHAIRPERSON: But like the
22 broadcasters, you think that that would be too
23 expensive without some help.
24 9246 MR. REDDICK: Well, it is a lot of
25 work. On the telecom side, as you well know, we put in
StenoTran
1986
1 a lot of work and effort and spent a lot of time and
2 resources on that side, because we know that we will
3 still be in business a week later.
4 9247 For this, we have not been able to
5 commit the same kinds of resources, because we are a
6 not-for-profit organization and it is difficult for us
7 to make contributions to the CRTC that way. We prefer
8 to give it to poverty groups and to seniors.
9 9248 So we cannot offer much more in the
10 way of ideas on that front.
11 9249 In terms of the CAB, we read through
12 their documentation, especially page 42 of their
13 written submission several times, and we found the idea
14 interesting but very poorly developed and not at all
15 clear.
16 9250 Some of the points in some of their
17 plans of how to establish goals and the approach that
18 would be used, we found not very clear, and some
19 implicit suggestions there that maybe there would be
20 less regulation or less performance requirements in
21 terms of their contributions and more voluntaristic
22 approach to how they use the funds or what types of
23 programs they may make.
24 9251 With respect to the lack of clarity
25 and the fuzziness of some of the points, we chose to
StenoTran
1987
1 err on the side of caution and assume that they wanted
2 to be released from some of the regulatory requirements
3 as part of the voluntaristic approach.
4 9252 We have some concerns with that and
5 also with the notion of viewership or using a ratings
6 approach to measure success.
7 9253 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Reddick, are
8 you --
9 9254 Mme VALLÉE: Je m'excuse, madame...
10 9255 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui, allez-y.
11 9256 Mme VALLÉE: J'aimerais citer Mme Lise
12 Payette, qui, lors de la remise des prix Gémeaux
13 dimanche dernier, nous a dit que "tout réduire aux
14 seules cotes d'écoute nous entraîne plutôt vers le bas
15 que vers le haut", et à ce titre-là je pense que la
16 suggestion de CAB serait effectivement de regarder avec
17 extrêmement d'attention, parce que si c'est comme ça
18 qu'on juge la qualité d'un programme, je pense qu'on
19 risque de vraiment errer dans le sens d'aller vers le
20 bas, et ce serait extrêmement regrettable.
21 9257 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ce serait vers les
22 bandes illustrées.
23 9258 Mme VALLÉE: Oui, effectivement.
24 9259 THE CHAIRPERSON: But, Mr. Reddick,
25 do I hear you say that with sufficient funds, you could
StenoTran
1988
1 find a way of making this project work; that it is
2 poorly thought out, but the idea is not necessarily to
3 be rejected?
4 9260 MR. REDDICK: If the underlying
5 assumption is that there is a problem with the current
6 regulatory approach, in that broadcasters see the
7 existing regulations as minimal targets -- this is all
8 they have to do and they do no more -- then that is a
9 problem and they are not contributing enough to the
10 system. Perhaps this is a better carrot, if you will,
11 or a way of showing good faith and goodwill.
12 9261 My response is: I would like to see
13 some evidence of that with the existing system; see
14 them go well beyond the existing floor, if you will, of
15 regulation to prove the point rather than to take the
16 risk of going on a voluntaristic approach or a code
17 approach without that regulatory framework to ground
18 that.
19 9262 Let's see if it can happen under the
20 existing framework and see what kind of success we
21 have.
22 9263 I think the problem is good
23 intentions, but when they butt up against shareholder
24 interest, I am willing to bet that the good intentions
25 are likely to lose on some of those issues.
StenoTran
1989
1 9264 One other suggestion that I heard
2 recently is that the Canadian Production Fund is
3 proposing new guidelines, I understand, where instead
4 of taking a first-come/first-served approach on
5 funding, they would adjudicate proposals based on the
6 Canadianness of the applications.
7 9265 I think when companies or
8 broadcasters come forward in future for licensing, that
9 may be another way of sort of thinking about how to
10 improve the content: Is it just indigenous production
11 for Canada, regardless of whether there is economic
12 potential? Or is there also an export potential here?
13 9266 Or is it just a visual widget, if you
14 will, for export?
15 9267 Perhaps there is a way of finetuning
16 what we think as Canadian content.
17 9268 I know we have a proceeding coming up
18 on that later.
19 9269 Beyond that, we did not have the time
20 to go into substantive details on these issues.
21 9270 THE CHAIRPERSON: When you talk about
22 progressive rather than regressive on the first page of
23 your presentation, you would say demand more, not less,
24 than they are now doing; but stop short of doing it at
25 the expense of the real local, local programming.
StenoTran
1990
1 9271 MR. REDDICK: Exactly. We have to be
2 careful. There is a certain amount of hand-wringing
3 going on, saying: "We have 32 percent viewership of
4 English programming." And people think that is
5 terrible.
6 9072 I think it is really good when you
7 look at other countries; for example, the United
8 States, where they have very little options other than
9 American programming. We have that, plus we also have
10 our programming.
11 9273 If we look at other areas, like
12 Canadian books, what have you, that greatly exceeds
13 those levels.
14 9274 So we are doing quite well. But we
15 can do better. I think as we plan to do better, we
16 have to be very careful that we don't trade off one
17 part of the sector, whether it is local programming or
18 under-represented categories for entertainment. We
19 have to be very careful in the approaches that we take.
20 9275 This requires probably some thought
21 and balance between "are we just talking about an
22 economic commodity for export", or "how do we balance
23 that with Canadian indigenous productions".
24 9276 That is a tough job. I know it is
25 your job to do that. How you resolve that, I can't
StenoTran
1991
1 help you too much on that today.
2 9277 I think that comes down to the core
3 of the issue.
4 9278 Mme VALLÉE: Je pense qu'il ne
5 faudrait pas que vous oubliez aussi qu'il y a comme
6 deux marchés au Canada, et que le niveau d'audiences au
7 Québec pour les productions de langue française est
8 extrêmement élevé, et qu'il faudrait faire attention à
9 ne pas détruire ce qui existe déjà en modifiant des
10 règles qui sont déjà quand même pas si exigeantes que
11 ça pour les producteurs et les distributeurs.
12 9279 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui, parce que vous
13 réalisez que les règles au Québec sont probablement
14 moins exigeantes que les règles au Canada anglais.
15 Donc il y a des facteurs assez complexes, qui dépassent
16 même la langue, dont on a discuté dans plusieurs
17 soumissions, qui nous ont donné ce système. Et je suis
18 d'accord avec vous qu'il y a plusieurs intervenants qui
19 veulent s'assurer que l'acquis soit gardé et qu'on ne
20 glisse pas vers moins de productions canadiennes.
21 9280 Mr. Reddick, you mentioned both this
22 morning and in your written submission this balance you
23 feel has to occur between the production of what you
24 could call indigenous programming and programming that
25 is exportable -- not to say that the one can't become
StenoTran
1992
1 the other.
2 9281 MR. REDDICK: Right.
3 9282 THE CHAIRPERSON: But you don't
4 discount the value of having a mix to reinforce the
5 production industry to the benefit of the viewer.
6 9283 MR. REDDICK: No. I think it is
7 extremely important to have the mix, because you have
8 to have an overall healthy industry. Obviously, some
9 areas are not as profitable as other areas. We do have
10 an industrial policy to create jobs and develop the
11 industry, and the economic side of that is very
12 important. The ability to undertake those other
13 activities requires that kind of financial health. So
14 I think that is very important.
15 9284 You are right that it is a question
16 of balance, and how we find that balance is probably
17 the key. That will change, and we will probably have
18 to revisit that over time.
19 9285 I think the biggest challenge for the
20 Commission over the next little while is, if we are
21 taking a more flexible approach in terms of policy --
22 9286 It is going to be a lot more work for
23 you to see what happens and who is proceeding with what
24 types of initiatives to achieve those kinds of
25 balances.
StenoTran
1993
1 1015
2 9287 THE CHAIRPERSON: With regard to
3 concentration of ownership, you seem to be quite
4 concerned that at the local level that there not be two
5 stations owned by the same owner and that would be
6 regardless of how many stations there are.
7 9288 You do seem to acknowledge that
8 concentration may, or do you, provide stronger parties
9 that are more likely with a balanced regulatory system
10 to give the results that you want.
11 9289 MR. REDDICK: Yes. In a competitive
12 market, producers are winners and losers. The natural
13 outcome is that one or a few companies wind up
14 dominating the marketplace, you know, given the freedom
15 to compete over time. That's fine.
16 9290 The important thing is to ensure that
17 as we move in that direction that there is not
18 dominance or particular control or market power by a
19 few companies in the industry. Yes, it's very
20 important, especially given global growth in the
21 industry, that we do have a very healthy broadcasting
22 industry and it's important to have the resources to be
23 able to undertake, you know, the types of requirements
24 they are going to need to survive domestically and deal
25 with international competition.
StenoTran
1994
1 9291 At the same time, it comes back to
2 that word balance. It would be ironic --
3 9292 THE CHAIRPERSON: Which is what you
4 are leaving to us.
5 9293 MR. REDDICK: Well, it is, but I
6 would observe that it would be ironic if we are victims
7 of our own success. You know, 20 years ago we had an
8 industry that was dominated by a couple of broadcasters
9 and a few production companies. We may end up coming
10 full circle if we're not careful, having an industry
11 dominated by a few distributors and a few production
12 companies and a few major broadcasters and the rest are
13 following along on their coat-tails.
14 9294 The question is how many, how big and
15 to what degree. If that's okay, then how do you
16 regulate it, what kind of conditions or requirements do
17 you need, if any? I think that's an ongoing review. I
18 don't think it's a hard and fast framework or answer
19 you can impose and say this will stand forever. I
20 think you have to look at how the industry changes over
21 time. I think it is an important issue.
22 9295 THE CHAIRPERSON: As you know, and
23 you alluded to it, we are holding a process on new
24 media, so I expect you will be there. Some of your
25 suggestions today address that area, in particular, by
StenoTran
1995
1 suggesting an additional levy on additional parties,
2 including carriers.
3 9296 Are you looking at carriers that get
4 involved in content only or Internet providers who do
5 nothing but to provide access to the Internet?
6 9297 MR. REDDICK: At this stage we are
7 recommending that telecommunication carriers and the
8 ISP commercial providers as the only initial first
9 step.
10 9298 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, but this would
11 be regardless of whether they are providing content.
12 They are only providing carriage.
13 9299 MR. REDDICK: Right.
14 9300 THE CHAIRPERSON: I have a bit of
15 difficulty with where you would find the Commission's
16 ability without any legislative amendment to require
17 telecom carriers who are not involved in content to
18 provide funds for the purpose of providing content.
19 9301 MR. REDDICK: Well, it's something
20 that we thought about. We have addressed this issue at
21 previous proceedings. A couple of observations. One,
22 you may have to make an amendment at some point. This
23 goes back to the notion of trying to bridge the two
24 Acts and are they flexible enough to deal with this
25 issue.
StenoTran
1996
1 9302 It also goes to the question of
2 there's a policy vacuum out there in our minds in
3 dealing with content and the various forms of content,
4 whether it's broadcasting on television, whether it's
5 multimedia, Internet, CD Rom, what have you. There
6 needs to be some more coherence and concordance between
7 content policies.
8 9303 Specifically, with
9 telecommunications, you know, we have moved well
10 beyond. We have evolved beyond basic telephone service
11 in terms of communications and telecommunications.
12 There are social obligations within the
13 Telecommunications Act under section 7. They are not
14 explicitly defined, but presumably with the amendment
15 earlier this year which refers to basic
16 telecommunications services in the plural as an
17 evolving concept, one would presume that if we were
18 moving beyond basic telephone and that we can receive
19 broadcasting and other forms of multimedia content
20 through the telecommunications system that there should
21 be some obligation there in terms of making that
22 accessible and also helping -- do they want summaries
23 or to see that new form of content which is not
24 programming in the traditional sense.
25 9304 THE CHAIRPERSON: You will be a very
StenoTran
1997
1 popular man with some parties at this hearing if you
2 are suggesting that 5 per cent of gross annual revenues
3 of all telephone carriers annually be funnelled into a
4 fund for the production of content.
5 9305 MR. REDDICK: And access.
6 9306 MS VALLÉE: Madame Wylie, j'aimerais
7 que ce soit bien clair. Cette proposition-là est reliée
8 à l'ensemble de la problématique de l'accès, et pas
9 seulement à l'accès à la programmation télévisuelle.
10 9307 Si vous regardez notre soumission à
11 la page 8 et 9, il est très clair que pour nous c'est
12 l'accès aux info-routes, ce qui comprend le téléphone,
13 le multimédia, la télévision, la radio, et toutes les
14 formes de communication. Soyons bien clairs.
15 9308 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Vous voulez dire des
16 subventions... il y aurait une partie de ce fonds qui
17 irait à la production de la programmation, et une
18 partie qui irait à subventionner l'accès.
19 9309 Mme VALLÉE: Effectivement, et je
20 pense que cette proposition-là, pour nous c'est à la
21 base la même que celle que vous nous avez déjà entendu
22 faire dans certaines audiences de télécommunication.
23 Celle qu'on a mis de l'avant dans l'audience sur le
24 service téléphonique dans les zones de desserte à coûts
25 élevés, et pour nous c'est intimement relié. Je pense
StenoTran
1998
1 que nous...
2 9310 LA PRÉSIDENTE: L'accès au contenu
3 plutôt que la production de contenu, ou les deux?
4 9311 Mme VALLÉE: Les deux. Mais c'est
5 notre troisième objectif dans notre proposition. C'est
6 d'abord l'accès au contenu, et ensuite l'aide au
7 développement de contenu local, régional, national. Et
8 je pense qu'il faut la voir dans ce sens-là.
9 9312 Nous avons déjà fait le saut dans le
10 monde de la convergence, et notre proposition s'inscrit
11 dans ce sens-là.
12 9313 MR. REDDICK: I would just like to
13 add that 5 per cent is a level that broadcast
14 distribution undertakings are required to contribute.
15 Given that their industry is about one tenth the size
16 of the telecommunications industry, we thought it would
17 be a fair and reasonable place to start.
18 9314 Again, I would just like to reaffirm
19 what Marie said about the disbursements of the funds.
20 One idea is to put it into telecommunications access.
21 When we look at programs such as the governments
22 connecting Canada program, community access, cap sites,
23 what have you, as the Commission has heard in this past
24 summer on the high cost of hearing proceeding, there's
25 a major access problem in terms of costs of multimedia
StenoTran
1999
1 or Internet service, if you will, in rural areas. Part
2 of those funds could be used as part of that universal
3 fund or connectivity fund or whatever you want to call
4 it under telecommunications.
5 9315 Explicitly, we did say that the other
6 fund -- the rest of the money should be channelled to
7 the multimedia fund, but also for non-profit cultural
8 groups, historical groups and others to develop
9 content.
10 9316 The interesting thing is, unlike
11 television programming where you require studios and a
12 mass of employees and expensive equipment and what have
13 you to produce content, with the Internet and
14 multimedia you require creativity, a computer, a
15 scanner and some local resources or regional resources.
16 9317 A lot of cultural groups and heritage
17 groups have those resources. What they lack is the
18 means and the assistance and the lack of some sort of a
19 national policy to develop that.
20 9318 There's a real opportunity for these
21 groups and organizations across the country to develop
22 this new form of content, but there's a lack of the
23 different programs or procedures in place to do that
24 right now. That would be the other fund.
25 9319 THE CHAIRPERSON: So in both cases,
StenoTran
2000
1 both access and as an incentive to the production of
2 content, you would have some criteria for access to it
3 based on inability to either pay or participate without
4 funding.
5 9320 MR. REDDICK: Yes. Ideally, we would
6 see this as separate funds, separate from the
7 broadcasters themselves who don't have to get involved
8 in the licensing issue, how do you license a fund or
9 how do you license a community network. We don't need
10 to get into that if the funds are accrued for those
11 purposes like any and all the other funds. People can
12 apply for that support.
13 9321 THE CHAIRPERSON: But if your aim is
14 to produce local programming, it's the broadcaster
15 usually who produces the local programming.
16 9322 MR. REDDICK: Yes. We are talking
17 about new forms of content though, using this fund.
18 9323 THE CHAIRPERSON: That are not
19 over-the-air available to all the Canadians and all the
20 consumers that you are representing.
21 9324 MR. REDDICK: Right. Electronic
22 content, multimedia.
23 9325 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It is 13 per
24 cent of homes now have the equipment necessary to have
25 access to the new forms of content on the --
StenoTran
2001
1 9326 MR. REDDICK: It ranges between -- it
2 depends on whose numbers you look at -- 15 and 25 per
3 cent. At the moment, it's still quite low. It is
4 growing, but it's the type of thing where I think over
5 the next several years we will see increasing options
6 of how people will have access, whether it's through
7 television or other modes, but I think it's something
8 that we need to start thinking about now in terms of
9 development.
10 9327 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It's a little
11 bit at odds with your aim to ensure that over-the-air
12 broadcasters get all the help they can and the
13 producers who produce programming for it so that the
14 highest proportion of the population get a diversity of
15 quality Canadian programming because generally
16 speaking, even with subsidies, I would imagine that
17 these new forms of access, and 25 to 30 per cent of
18 Internet access at home seems high to me, but in any
19 event, we see various numbers.
20 9328 It still remains that it's not the
21 consumer that you are aiming for whose life would be
22 enriched, that is the consumer who is relying only on
23 the over-the-air broadcaster to offer entertainment,
24 information, et cetera.
25 9329 MR. REDDICK: I agree with your
StenoTran
2002
1 point. The problem is that there's no real choice for
2 consumers on this. We are moving to digital
3 television. A lot of the information, products and
4 service produced by governments and others are only
5 being made available on the Internet.
6 9330 It's not a question -- you know, some
7 of our clients don't want this, don't need this,
8 probably won't want to use this, but the problem is
9 they will have less and less choice over the next
10 several years so we are looking ahead in a transition
11 and saying if they are not going to have choice about
12 whether they have to access some of these content
13 services, whether it's government services or
14 commercial services, down the road, if they are not
15 going to have choice about whether they have to have
16 digital television or a set-top box over the next
17 several years, then at least what we should do is put
18 in place different types of funds or means of support
19 for both access, to facilitate access at the community
20 level and also different forms of support for content
21 which is relevant to their needs, which gives them a
22 reason beyond there down the road.
23 9331 You're right. Today it's not that
24 big an issue, but over the next several years it will
25 become an issue. We have to be thinking ahead for
StenoTran
2003
1 that.
2 9332 Mme VALLÉE: C'est ça, et je pense que
3 notre proposition s'inscrit très bien dans la volonté
4 réitérée à maintes reprises par le gouvernement du
5 Canada, et particulièrement par le ministre de
6 l'industrie, qu'il y ait des points d'accès
7 communautaires, qu'il y ait de la production
8 communautaire qui pourront, oui, être diffusés par le
9 canal, l'Internet, et donc par des moyens
10 technologiques plus avancés, mais qui pourrait
11 également être reprise par les télédiffuseurs
12 traditionnels et diffusée soit localement, soit
13 régionalement.
14 9333 Je pense qu'il faut aussi donner aux
15 communautés la chance d'être au même niveau que les
16 entreprises commerciales -- peut-être pas au même
17 niveau mais, en tout cas, pas un dinosaure par rapport
18 à une Ferrari, n'est-ce pas, quand le temps va venir où
19 on n'aura plus le choix, et que là ce soit seulement
20 les fournisseurs commerciaux qui aient les moyens de
21 développer des applications qui vont refléter, dans le
22 fond, la volonté et la diversité des communautés.
23 9334 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais vous vous
24 rappelez que nous parlons maintenant de radiodiffusion.
25 Nous ne parlons pas de capacité d'avoir accès à
StenoTran
2004
1 E-Commerce, E-Mail. Nous parlons ici de broadcasting,
2 de programmation, de divertissement, d'information,
3 news, et caetera.
4 9335 Mme VALLÉE: On n'est pas des grands
5 promoteurs du commerce électronique. On répond au...
6 9336 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Non, mais la
7 nécessité que les gens soient au même diapason est plus
8 sérieuse dans... in the area where one has to have
9 certain access to be able to participate in the world
10 the way other people are participating.
11 9337 It would seem to me if we provide in
12 the widest available technology means possible the best
13 programming possible that is diverse and of quality, in
14 the sense of broadcasting would be the aim.
15 9338 It appears to be your aim in ensuring
16 that those transmitters are not turned down.
17 9339 MR. REDDICK: Yes.
18 9340 THE CHAIRPERSON: If we put too much
19 money into providing video to a very small portion of
20 the population, it seems contradictory to the main aim
21 of your presentation.
22 9341 I want to ask you a last question.
23 On page 13, paragraph 22, of your written submission,
24 you speak of the significant benefits test and that it
25 should be continued. In other words, that when there
StenoTran
2005
1 are transfers or concentration of ownership, the
2 Commission continue to demand that something be put
3 back in the system for the benefit of viewers.
4 9342 You say that there should continue to
5 be a comprehensive package of benefits as part of
6 licensing and a definition and imposition of these
7 should be done in an open, transparent processes. Are
8 you suggesting that that is not the case at the moment
9 and there needs to be a change or review in the manner
10 that the Commission imposes significant benefits?
11 9343 MR. REDDICK: No. We just want to
12 make sure it continues on in future.
13 9344 THE CHAIRPERSON: In the same manner.
14 9345 MR. REDDICK: In the same manner.
15 9346 THE CHAIRPERSON: You are aware that
16 we have public notices as to what are benefits that are
17 acceptable and what are not. Often, especially in
18 larger transactions, they are discussed very openly --
19 9347 MR. REDDICK: That's important.
20 9348 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- and are in the
21 application and people can criticize or comment.
22 9349 MR. REDDICK: Especially for viewers
23 in different communities, you know when there are
24 changes in ownerships and what have you. It's very
25 important that they know what's going on and have an
StenoTran
2006
1 opportunity to input into what's going on.
2 9350 One of our concerns in that as we
3 move to greater ownership of more and more station by
4 large owner groups that if the benefits are shifted
5 away from the community and promises are made to
6 produce other than at a regional or national level, we
7 want to make sure that people in the communities aren't
8 losing out on that.
9 9351 THE CHAIRPERSON: As you know, in
10 radio recently the Commission changed it's policy to a
11 case by case approach -- well, it's case by case in the
12 sense that it's related to the monetary level of the
13 transaction and a percentage was struck.
14 9352 Do you find that a more acceptable
15 method than an ad hoc method where the percentages may
16 indeed vary rather than simply applying a percentage
17 and then dictating where it goes.
18 9353 MR. REDDICK: Yes. I think you have
19 to be flexible. The reality is we have to take things
20 on a case by case basis these days because every
21 situation will be a bit different. I don't think you
22 can have a hard and fast rule.
23 9354 You may find you have to, I don't
24 know, but I think if the system is going to work and
25 given the different realities of different markets and
StenoTran
2007
1 the different companies involved, you may need to take
2 a more flexible approach on that.
3 9355 THE CHAIRPERSON: Those are my
4 questions. My colleagues may have some, especially
5 Commissioner McKendry indicated he does.
6 9356 I hope you enjoyed yourselves
7 sufficiently to come back on a rainy day and without
8 funds.
9 9357 MR. REDDICK: We will get walking
10 back, but we will be okay.
11 9358 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
12 9359 Commissioner McKendry.
13 9360 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I just have
14 one question I wanted to ask you about the 5 per cent
15 contribution by telecommunications carriers and
16 commercial ISPs.
17 9361 Cable rates are 5 per cent higher
18 than they would be otherwise because of the
19 contribution by the cable companies. It's not really
20 the cable companies that make the contribution to the
21 fund. It's you and me and the cable companies'
22 customers.
23 9362 Do you think that consumers would
24 cheerfully accept a 5 per cent increase in their phone
25 bills and in their ISP --
StenoTran
2008
1 9363 MR. REDDICK: How much do you get
2 back each month from your phone company when you pay
3 your bill?
4 9364 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Just to
5 finish my question. Do you think that consumers would
6 cheerfully accept a 5 per cent increase in their phone
7 bills and in their ISP access fees for the purposes
8 that you have set out here?
9 9365 MR. REDDICK: Again, I would answer
10 the question and I will continue with how much do you
11 get back each month from your ISP and your phone
12 company out of your phone bill? What we are proposing
13 may increase your fees by 5 per cent. The difference
14 is that it's consumer money going back for consumers
15 and for public interest us.
16 9366 I think given the trade-off, it's
17 probably well worth it. Marie?
18 9367 Mme VALLÉE: Je pense aussi que
19 peut-être que ça ne se traduira pas nécessairement par
20 une hausse de 5 pour cent de la facture du téléphone de
21 base, compte tenu qu'actuellement on le sait... je ne
22 voudrais pas tomber dans une audience de telecom, mais
23 que les compagnies de telecom ont de la misère à
24 rencontrer les obligations qui leur sont imposées par
25 le plafonnement des prix. Alors peut-être que ça va se
StenoTran
2009
1 traduire par une hausse de 5 pour cent; peut-être pas
2 non plus. Ce sont des choses qui devront être
3 débattues quand on discutera des fonds à mettre en
4 place pour aider à l'accès dans les régions rurales
5 éloignées, pour les personnes économiquement
6 défavorisées, et peut-être aussi pour aider à
7 contribuer au développement de contenu canadien.
8 9368 Mais est-ce que ça va effectivement
9 donner directement une hausse de 5 pour cent? C'est ce
10 qu'on verra. Par ailleurs, je crois que Andy a soulevé
11 un point très important, à savoir que, oui, peut-être
12 que nos tarifs de câble sont légèrement plus élevés
13 qu'ils le seraient, mais je pense que ça nous donne
14 aussi un meilleur éventail de productions canadiennes,
15 de contribuer comme ça.
16 9369 C'est sûr qu'il va y avoir des gens
17 qui ne seront pas contents, mais je pense que c'est le
18 rôle du Conseil et du gouvernement canadien,
19 d'équilibrer, balancer, comme on dit en anglais, les
20 intérêts individuels avec l'intérêt public, l'intérêt
21 collectif, et si c'est le prix à payer, on le paiera.
22 9370 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you.
23 9371 THE CHAIRPERSON: Counsel?
24 9372 MR. BLAIS: Just one question.
25 9373 I was noticing that your
StenoTran
2010
1 recommendations dealt with the broadcasting sector
2 generally. I was wondering more specifically from a
3 consumer perspective whether the specificity of either
4 the English or the French sector should influence those
5 recommendations.
6 1030
7 9374 Do the consumer interests -- are they
8 in line with the notion that each sector is distinct?
9 9375 Mme VALLÉE: Je pense que vous ne
10 pourrez pas faire autrement que d'en tenir compte,
11 n'est-ce pas, mais je crois aussi qu'il y a des choses
12 qui s'appliquent à travers tout le pays au titre de
13 protéger le contenu canadien, qu'il soit francophone ou
14 anglophone. C'est évident qu'il y a des spécificités
15 dans la production et dans la distribution du contenu
16 francophone et qu'on veut préserver ce qu'on a réussi à
17 atteindre à travers les années, mais je pense qu'il ne
18 faut pas non plus lâcher trop de corde du côté de la
19 production et de la distribution au Canada anglais non
20 plus.
21 9376 Me BLAIS: Peut-être ma question
22 touchait plus la structure de l'industrie du côté
23 francophone.
24 9377 Je me demandais si, étant donné les
25 trois tests de ce marché, on ne devrait pas avoir des
StenoTran
2011
1 règles qui sont un peu différentes du Canada anglais,
2 et je me demandais si du point de vue des consommateurs
3 ça vous créait des problèmes.
4 9378 Mme VALLÉE: Dans le sens de la
5 propriété, ou...
6 9379 Effectivement, je pense que le marché
7 étant extrêmement concentré et très petit, ce que nous
8 avons mentionné s'applique probablement encore avec
9 plus de précaution ou d'attention au Québec, compte
10 tenu de... effectivement, déjà il y a un très haut
11 niveau de concentration. Il faut faire encore très
12 attention à ce niveau-là.
13 9380 Ceci dit, je pense que le marché
14 canadien-anglais n'est pas si immense que ça. Le
15 Canada est un grand pays, mais le marché n'est pas plus
16 grand parce qu'il est géographiquement étendu, et je
17 pense que dans l'ouest, entre autres, tous les
18 mouvements qu'on a vus, entre autres, la compagnie Shaw
19 faire des acquisitions verticales, tout ça, il va
20 falloir de ce côté-là être aussi extrêmement prudent.
21 9381 MR. REDDICK: I would just like to
22 add at the outset of the proceeding, I think it was the
23 Chair stated that there are distinct differences
24 between the different markets and we respect and
25 understand there may be different applications in a
StenoTran
2012
1 general level of some of the different ideals. So,
2 yes, we acknowledge that.
3 9382 Me BLAIS: Merci. Ce sont mes
4 questions.
5 9383 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci. Nous vous
6 remercions et, au revoir.
7 9384 Nous allons maintenant prendre une
8 pause de 15 minutes. We will be back at 10 to 11:00.
9 --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1035
10 --- Reprise à / Upon resuming at 1055
11 9385 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Bonjour, mesdames et
12 messieurs. Je m'excuse, il semble que je sois un peu
13 en retard.
14 9386 Madame la Secrétaire.
15 9387 Mme BÉNARD: Merci, Madame la
16 Présidente.
17 9388 La prochaine présentation sera celle
18 de Astral Communications inc. J'inviterais M. Bureau à
19 nous présenter ses collègues.
20 PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION
21 9389 M. BUREAU: Madame la Présidente,
22 Mesdames, Messieurs les Conseillers, je suis André
23 Bureau, président du conseil d'Astral Communications et
24 président et chef de la direction du Groupe de
25 radiodiffusion Astral.
StenoTran
2013
1 9390 À mes côtés aujourd'hui, à ma droite,
2 Lisa de Wilde, présidente de TMN - The Movie Network,
3 MOVIEPIX et Viewer's Choice Canada; à sa droite, Sophie
4 Émond, conseiller juridique, Heenan Blaikie; à ma
5 gauche, Pierre Roy, président et chef de la direction
6 de Super Écran, Canal Famille et Canal D; derrière moi,
7 en commençant par ma gauche, René Bourdages,
8 vice-président et directeur général de Canal Indigo;
9 Len Cochrane, président et chef de l'exploitation de
10 Family Channel, qu'Astral détient à part égale avec
11 WIC; Alicia Ortiz, directrice à la planification
12 stratégique de TMN Networks; et John Riley, président
13 de Teletoon, dont Family Cannel est le principal
14 actionnaire.
15 9391 Comme vous le savez, Madame la
16 Présidente, le Groupe de radiodiffusion Astral exploite
17 quatre réseaux de télévision spécialisée, Canal D,
18 Canal Famille, Teletoon en français et Teletoon en
19 anglais; quatre réseaux de télévision payante, Super
20 Écran, TMN, MOVIEPIX et Family Channel; ainsi qu'un
21 réseau de télévision à la carte de langue française,
22 Canal Indigo, et un de langue anglaise, Viewer's
23 Choice.
24 9392 Par le biais de ces réseaux, nous
25 avons contribué plus de 325 millions de dollars au
StenoTran
2014
1 développement de scénarios, au financement, à la
2 promotion et à la diffusion d'émissions canadiennes
3 depuis le lancement de nos premiers réseaux au début
4 des années quatre-vingt. Mais, encore plus important,
5 nos contributions financières ont porté vers les
6 catégories d'émissions canadiennes sous-représentées,
7 soit les longs métrages, les séries dramatiques, les
8 documentaires et les émissions pour enfants. De plus,
9 ces émissions voient fréquemment leur qualité reconnue
10 sur la scène nationale et internationale. Une liste
11 contenant le nombre impressionnant d'émissions ainsi
12 primées est jointe à notre présentation.
13 9393 Nos réseaux Super Écran, TMN,
14 MOVIEPIX, Viewer's Choice et Canal Indigo sont des
15 acteurs clés du secteur canadien de la télévision
16 payante et à la carte, qui représentent la plus grande
17 source de financement des longs métrages canadiens
18 provenant du secteur privé. De plus, nos réseaux
19 constituent la fenêtre la plus importante permettant
20 aux téléspectateurs canadiens de voir à ces enseignes
21 des films canadiens. Ainsi, par exemple, "Le Violon
22 Rouge", "No!", "Last Night" et "Hathi", qui ont connu
23 beaucoup de succès lors du récent Festival
24 international du film de Toronto et au Festival des
25 films du monde de Montréal, seront diffusés par nos
StenoTran
2015
1 réseaux dans moins d'un an.
2 9394 À Canal Indigo, "Les Boys" détient le
3 record de tous les temps pour le plus de ventes en une
4 journée pour un film offert à la carte. De plus, Canal
5 Indigo a fait sa marque dans le soutien d'événements
6 dont le public québécois raffole avec, par exemple, les
7 galas du Festival Juste pour Rire et des concerts du
8 Festival d'été international de Québec. Viewer's
9 Choice, pour sa part, fournit une programmation unique
10 à un auditoire de niche; "The Sahara Cup Cricket" en
11 est un bon exemple.
12 9395 Bien que les émissions pour enfants
13 soient parmi les catégories les plus sous-représentées
14 à la télévision canadienne, Canal Famille, Family
15 Channel et Teletoon offrent un menu quotidien
16 d'émissions pour enfants et d'animation de qualité en
17 provenance du secteur indépendant. De plus, ils
18 apportent un soutien financier critique à ces émissions
19 et les enfants canadiens les écoutent fidèlement: Les
20 productions canadiennes "Franklin", "The Busy World of
21 Richard Scarry" et "Kleo The Misfit Unicorn" font
22 constamment partie de la liste des dix émissions les
23 plus populaires de Family Channel dans le bloc
24 préscolaire.
25 9396 Au premier anniversaire de Teletoon,
StenoTran
2016
1 nous pouvons affirmer que les productions canadiennes,
2 telles "Fifi Brindacier" et l'émission préscolaire
3 "Caillou", ont grandement contribué au succès du
4 lancement du réseau. D'ailleurs, "Caillou" a remporté
5 un prix Gémeaux la fin de semaine dernière. Quant à
6 Canal Famille, nous sommes fiers d'être associés aux
7 cinq prix Gémeaux décernés aux productions suivantes
8 dimanche dernier, "Pin-Pon", "Radio-Enfer" et "Les
9 Zigotos".
10 9397 Canal D, quant à lui, fournit un
11 soutien financier important aux producteurs canadiens
12 de documentaires, une catégorie d'émissions fortement
13 sous-représentée à la télévision de langue française
14 avant l'arrivée de Canal D. Depuis son lancement en
15 1995 Canal D a diffusé des séries primées, tel "Des
16 Crimes et des Hommes", des documentaires d'auteur tel
17 "Aller simple pour Sirius" et "Anatomie de Tarzan".
18 9398 En plus de notre contribution au
19 Fonds Harold Greenberg, nous sommes heureux d'annoncer
20 aujourd'hui la création du Fonds de programmation
21 Astral. Ce nouveau fonds jouera un rôle dans le
22 financement, le développement et la production
23 d'émissions canadiennes en se concentrant tout d'abord
24 sur les documentaires. Le fonds injectera 10 millions
25 de dollars supplémentaires sur cinq ans dans la
StenoTran
2017
1 production canadienne. Ceci contribuera à générer un
2 volume de production de documentaires de 50 millions de
3 dollars.
4 9399 MS de WILDE: The current regulatory
5 framework ensures that the contribution of the
6 specialty and pay television sector automatically
7 increases as revenues grow. In the last five years pay
8 and specialty services have increased their total
9 revenues by more than 60 per cent, while Canadian
10 programming expenses have increased by almost 90 per
11 cent. In fact, 80 per cent of all the new incremental
12 dollars that have been spent on programming by pay and
13 specialty services went to Canadian programming.
14 9400 In contrast, conventional
15 broadcasters have increased their revenues by more than
16 15 per cent over the last five years, but have only
17 increased their Canadian programming expenditures by 8
18 per cent. For conventional broadcasters, the
19 proportion of those new dollars spent on Canadian
20 programming represented only a third of all the new
21 programming dollars spent. We have included in the
22 package an appendix that explains this calculation.
23 The point of it, though, is to demonstrate that the
24 conditions of licence that are attached to pay and
25 specialty in fact drive increased contributions as long
StenoTran
2018
1 as revenues are increasing.
2 9401 The contribution of pay and specialty
3 services can be even larger if we can eliminate a
4 number of the bottlenecks that currently limit our
5 access to viewers and hence hold back or hold down our
6 revenues.
7 9402 It is urgent that efforts be made to
8 eliminate the piracy, which has a very dramatic
9 negative impact on Canadian pay television and
10 pay-per-view revenues. Each year this signal piracy
11 translates into losses of millions of dollars to the
12 detriment of rightsholders as well as to the whole
13 Canadian system. Indeed, the elimination of piracy
14 would more than double the expenditures of pay TV and
15 pay-per-view, which currently spend $23 million each
16 year on Canadian movies.
17 9403 We believe that the best way to
18 eliminate piracy is to accelerate the transition from
19 analog to digital cable distribution. The more
20 sophisticated encryption technology that is associated
21 with digital will shut down the signal thieves.
22 9404 This is also why we have recommended
23 that the Commission establish and chair a working group
24 in which all the players with an interest in digital
25 cable distribution can work together to formulate a
StenoTran
2019
1 viable business plan for the roll-out of digital cable.
2 9405 Secondly, for Canadian viewers to be
3 able to watch high quality Canadian programs, those
4 programming services which exhibit those programs have
5 to be made available to them. To this end, we suggest
6 several regulatory initiatives to eliminate some key
7 bottlenecks and to therefore increase our contribution
8 by increasing our revenues.
9 9406 First, we suggest that the Commission
10 should establish a floor wholesale rate for specialty
11 services since it is these revenues that underpin the
12 licence commitments for Canadian programming.
13 9407 Second, the regulatory framework
14 should favour the packaging of specialty services
15 rather than an à la carte approach.
16 9408 Finally, in a digital world, the
17 distribution of French-language services must be
18 expanded to markets where at least 10 per cent of the
19 population is French speaking.
20 9409 M. ROY: Certains radiodiffuseurs
21 conventionnels favorisent une intégration plus poussée
22 du système qui permettrait aux radiodiffuseurs
23 conventionnels d'augmenter leurs activités de
24 production et d'avoir davantage accès aux fonds publics
25 pour cette activité.
StenoTran
2020
1 9410 Avec ce scénario, nous croyons qu'il
2 y a un risque réel que les petits et moyens producteurs
3 indépendants soient marginalisés. Pour les services de
4 télévision spécialisée et payante comme les nôtres, qui
5 ont choisi de dépendre des producteurs indépendants
6 pour l'approvisionnement de toute leur programmation
7 canadienne, cela serait dévastateur.
8 9411 Nos réseaux, qui globalement génèrent
9 moins de revenus que TVA, ne sont pas suffisants à eux
10 seuls pour assurer la viabilité du secteur indépendant.
11 En fait, le Canada ne compterait pas 48 réseaux de
12 télévision spécialisée et payante si chacun d'eux
13 dépendait uniquement de sa production maison. Le
14 soutien des réseaux conventionnels à la production
15 indépendante est donc également essentiel.
16 9412 Pour maintenir un secteur sain de la
17 production indépendante, nous suggérons donc d'exiger
18 de tous les radiodiffuseurs conventionnels qu'ils
19 consacrent un pourcentage de leurs dépenses de
20 programmation à des émissions produites par des
21 entreprises non affiliées.
22 9413 Si le Conseil en venait à recommander
23 que les radiodiffuseurs aient accès au Programme de
24 participation au capital du Fonds canadien de
25 télévision, cet accès devrait être limité aux
StenoTran
2021
1 productions qui ne sont pas présentées à leur antenne
2 en première fenêtre. Cette approche serait consistante
3 avec les règles empêchant les producteurs qui
4 détiennent des réseaux spécialisés d'accéder aux fonds
5 pour leurs propres réseaux.
6 9414 Nous suggérons que l'allocation de 50
7 pour cent allouée aux productions destinées à la
8 Société Radio-Canada doit être revue. Cette allocation
9 est devenue disproportionnée par rapport au poids réel
10 de la Société Radio-Canada dans l'univers télévisuel
11 canadien.
12 9415 En ce qui a trait à la ventilation
13 des ressources par catégorie d'émissions, nous
14 soumettons qu'elle devrait mieux refléter les
15 préoccupations du Conseil concernant toutes les
16 catégories d'émissions sous-représentées.
17 9416 Nous recommandons également, afin de
18 générer des droits de licences supplémentaires pour les
19 producteurs, que la définition d'"émission originale en
20 première diffusion" soit élargie pour faciliter le
21 financement d'émissions canadiennes de catégories
22 sous-représentées, particulièrement des émissions pour
23 enfants et des documentaires. La définition proposée
24 dans notre mémoire permettrait à des diffuseurs de
25 langues anglaise et française, discrétionnaires et
StenoTran
2022
1 spécialisés, de contribuer conjointement au financement
2 des émissions tout en étant toujours considérées comme
3 émissions originales en première diffusion sur chacune
4 des fenêtres.
5 9417 MR. COCHRANE: Now, I would like to
6 turn to the promotion of Canadian programming and
7 services.
8 9418 We agree that increasing the
9 resources dedicated to the promotion of Canadian
10 programming is a desired objective. We must emphasize,
11 however, that it is also vitally important to promote
12 Canadian programming services and not only Canadian
13 programs. In an increasingly competitive universe, the
14 promotion of Canadian services must also be a primary
15 objective. This is especially the case for truly
16 discretionary pay television services, which must sell
17 subscription to the service each and every month by
18 promoting the services through unscrambled venues, like
19 cross-channel avails.
20 9419 MR. RILEY: As our final point, we
21 wish to support the widely held view that the
22 contribution of authorized non-Canadian services should
23 be increased. We agree with the suggestion made by
24 SPTV to use all advertising avails on U.S. satellite
25 services to promote Canadian programming and Canadian
StenoTran
2023
1 services.
2 9420 It must be stressed that this new
3 contribution by U.S. satellite services should in no
4 way lead to any relaxation of the current rules which
5 favour the licensing and distribution of Canadian
6 services, nor would we want to see an end to the
7 moratorium on additions to the List of authorized
8 foreign services.
9 9421 MR. BUREAU: This concludes our
10 remarks. A summary of our key points is attached to
11 our presentation, and we look forward to answering your
12 questions.
13 9422 Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.
14 9423 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci.
15 9424 Commissioner Wilson.
16 9425 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Good morning,
17 Mr. Bureau, and good morning to all of your colleagues,
18 including Mr. Riley in the back row there. It is a
19 pleasure to have you with us.
20 9426 MR. RILEY: Good to see you.
21 9427 COMMISSIONER WILSON: If you don't
22 mind, I would like to take advantage of the fact that
23 you have some experience in this area by exploring your
24 submission in the context of a number of the proposals
25 that have been presented to us. Then I would like to
StenoTran
2024
1 ask you a couple of more general questions and some
2 questions with respect to your oral submission; you
3 have added some detail in there to expand on some of
4 the points that you have made in your submission, and I
5 would just like to clarify a couple of issues.
6 9428 You make six specific recommendations
7 in your submission, one of which deals with access and
8 distribution. As you are probably aware, since you
9 filed your submission we have initiated a public
10 process at the Commission that will deal with these
11 issues, and as a result it would be imprudent of me to
12 engage in lengthy discussion with you on those issues,
13 but I want to assure you that the points that you made
14 with respect to unrealized contributions to Canadian
15 programming have been noted, and that certainly is the
16 area which touches directly on our exploration right
17 now.
18 9429 In your introduction, when you talk
19 about the success of the Canadian television system,
20 you say that this success is the result of five
21 critical regulatory policies and you describe these
22 policies as the fundamental building blocks essential
23 to the success of the Canadian broadcasting system and
24 to the fulfilment of the objectives outlined by the
25 Commission and set out in the Broadcasting Act, and you
StenoTran
2025
1 go on to say that they should be kept in mind
2 throughout the current public process.
3 9430 It occurred to me when I read that
4 that maybe there is just a bit of a frustrated
5 regulator expressing himself in those words and I
6 wondered if maybe you missed the days when you had a
7 more direct impact on all of this, but I wonder if you
8 would mind articulating for us why you think these five
9 policies in particular are the most important ones for
10 the Canadian broadcasting system.
11 1110
12 9431 MR. BUREAU: Madam Wilson, I will
13 obviously not comment on your suggestion, but I will
14 say that these five key elements that we have mentioned
15 in our submission, we have developed them over the past
16 few years, not only for the purpose of this process
17 here but because we are involved in some other venues
18 with strategic positions for the Canadian government
19 vis-à-vis the rest of the world in terms of treaties,
20 in terms of international agreements and things of that
21 nature.
22 9432 On these occasions we had to rethink
23 how we should position our country, how the success
24 that we have had here could "benefit other countries"
25 if they were to try and establish something, some sort
StenoTran
2026
1 of an infrastructure, some sort of a regulatory
2 framework that would work and would create the proper
3 environment for a strong, unique, distinctive Canadian
4 broadcasting system.
5 9433 So, we came up with these five
6 critical regulatory policies that we have put in our
7 submission here, the first one being the Canadian
8 ownership. As we all know, this notion is debated at
9 every level of government and in every instance where
10 there are some international discussions and we still
11 believe that it is the fundamental regulatory measure
12 that will ensure that we maintain a distinctive and
13 strong Canadian broadcasting system.
14 9434 The second one is the separate
15 Canadian territorial market for program rights and
16 obviously the minute we abandon that, the minute we
17 forget about that or we allow something to deteriorate
18 that situation, there is no possibility for Canadian
19 broadcasters to compete against, for example, the
20 Americans who would be in a position to acquire North
21 American rights while we cannot acquire North American
22 rights. So, we cannot afford to do that. So, we would
23 be in position where we would be deprived of access to
24 a lot of programming coming from outside Canada.
25 9435 The third one is the access and
StenoTran
2027
1 distribution rules and --
2 9436 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That's the one
3 that we are not really going to talk about.
4 9437 MR. BUREAU: That's the one that we
5 won't talk about. All right, we won't talk about it,
6 but they are very fundamental.
7 9438 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I'm sure you
8 will talk about it later.
9 9439 MR. BUREAU: We will have other
10 venues.
11 9440 The next one is the Canadian content
12 exhibition and spending requirements for all Canadian
13 broadcasters and what we have alluded to in our oral
14 presentation is that what you have seen happening on
15 the side of the specialty services by having an
16 approach to the contribution of those licensees to the
17 usage of some of their revenues to acquire or invest in
18 Canadian programming has been working very well and we
19 believe that this point here is a very, very important
20 one that needs to be stressed.
21 9441 The fifth one is the favourable tax
22 treatment for advertising on Canadian broadcasting
23 networks and we believe that these together would form
24 the five critical regulatory policies that need to be
25 maintained. Now, in addition to that, before I let my
StenoTran
2028
1 other colleagues comment on that, if you wish, if you
2 allow us, there is a pretty fundamental overall
3 structure that is not part of any rule in the
4 regulatory framework that we have, but it has been
5 established over the years and I think that it is very
6 key that we maintain that.
7 9442 The Canadian system here has been
8 flourishing, has been a real success, because you have
9 the Canadian conventional broadcasters that form one
10 element of it, you have the Canadian independent
11 production industry and you have the specialty and pay
12 services. I insist on the Canadian independent
13 production industry because it is clear, as we have
14 also mentioned in our oral presentation, that if they
15 were not there, if they were not that strong as they
16 are at the present time -- which is the envy of the
17 rest of the world, except the United States, but for
18 the rest of the world -- if they were not there, we
19 would not have 48 specialty and pay services in Canada
20 here. We would have had to import more foreign
21 services because we could not afford separately these
22 48 services, could not afford to establish a production
23 infrastructure to provide the Canadian content that we
24 provide.
25 9443 So, these three are very key elements
StenoTran
2029
1 of the system and if we allow any one of the three to
2 deteriorate or to be impacted negatively, it will have
3 an impact on the overall system. For example, if the
4 Canadian independent production industry were to
5 disappear or were to be seriously negatively impacted
6 by some rules --
7 9444 COMMISSIONER WILSON: As it has in
8 the U.S., for example.
9 9445 MR. BUREAU: Exactly. The specialty
10 services would be in great need of some quality
11 Canadian production and where would they buy it because
12 they cannot by themselves justify the maintenance or
13 the existence of a Canadian production industry --
14 9446 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I am going
15 to --
16 9447 MR. BUREAU: -- and the three have to
17 work together.
18 9448 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I am going to
19 explore that in a little more detail with you as I go
20 through your recommendations, so we will have more of
21 an opportunity, but I would like to turn to the first
22 of the recommendations that you made, at least the
23 first one that we are going to talk about, and that's
24 the support for under-represented program categories.
25 9449 You noted at page 10 of your
StenoTran
2030
1 submission that programs from the under-represented
2 categories are a prominent element of the schedules of
3 pay and specialty networks, but you also feel that all
4 licensed programming services should actively support
5 the creation and exhibition of programming in these
6 categories.
7 9450 One of the suggestions that we have
8 heard from the broadcasters is that the Commission
9 should stop placing such heavy emphasis on the
10 under-represented categories, thereby devaluing other
11 categories of programming such as news or local
12 reflection, and they also propose that we allow them
13 the flexibility to differentiate themselves and
14 contribute greater diversity to the system by allowing
15 them to concentrate their efforts on the specific
16 genres of Canadian programming that they feel they do
17 best.
18 9451 What is your reaction to that
19 proposal? I mean as a business person whose network
20 schedules are comprised to a very large degree of the
21 under-represented categories of programming, isn't it
22 in your interest to have that niche carved out for
23 yourself and not worry so much about all of the other
24 licensed programming undertakings?
25 1120
StenoTran
2031
1 9452 M. ROY: Non. Nous croyons que ces
2 catégories sous-représentées devraient être maintenues
3 et même nous pensons que pour le marché francophone,
4 par exemple, il y a encore un besoin accru de supporter
5 ces catégories sous-représentées par une meilleure
6 allocation des fonds qui leur sont consacrés.
7 L'équilibre dont André parlait entre les producteurs et
8 tout le système, les diffuseurs et les services
9 spécialisés, je pense que cet équilibre doit aussi
10 exister au niveau des catégories sous-représentées et
11 que ça ne doit pas être le seul fait des chaînes
12 spécialisées.
13 9453 À l'occasion nous faisons des accords
14 de co-financement avec des chaînes conventionnelles,
15 que ce soit dans notre propre marché ou dans le marché
16 anglophone. Donc elles aussi doivent contribuer à leur
17 façon au financement et à la diffusion de ces
18 catégories sous-représentées de programmation.
19 9454 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So when you say
20 that you need increased support, especially in the
21 French-language market, for the under-represented
22 programming categories -- in fact, I think in your
23 submission you outline that in the English-language
24 market it is drama, variety, music and dance,
25 children's, documentaries, but in the French-language
StenoTran
2032
1 market drama is much more prevalent and much more
2 successful in terms of viewership.
3 9455 M. ROY: Tout à fait. Nous avons une
4 longue tradition de succès au niveau des séries
5 dramatiques au Canada français, mais le financement
6 d'émissions pour enfants ou de documentaires de qualité
7 est vraiment problématique parce que nous avons un
8 petit marché, des ressources limitées, et dans ce
9 sens-là nous proposons qu'il y ait une meilleure
10 allocation des fonds.
11 9456 Je pense que l'annonce que l'on fait
12 aujourd'hui de la création du Fonds de programmation
13 Astral, qui va d'abord s'intéresser au financement de
14 documentaires de haut calibre, va tout à fait dans une
15 de ces directions pour aider ce financement-là.
16 9457 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. I was
17 going to ask you, actually, about your suggestion with
18 respect to the inclusion of documentaries in the
19 under-represented program categories, apart from the
20 fact that you have Canal D and Canal D does exhibit
21 documentaries, so there would be some motivation from
22 that aspect, but I think your response has clarified
23 that for me, especially with respect to the French
24 market.
25 9458 M. ROY: Je pense qu'au-delà de Canal
StenoTran
2033
1 D le documentaire a connu au cours des dernières années
2 sur la scène internationale un regain de popularité.
3 Il y a de plus en plus de demandes qui vont dans ce
4 sens-là, de demandes de licences, de nouvelles licences
5 qui veulent proposer du documentaire. Alors ce n'est
6 pas seulement pour un besoin immédiat de Canal D mais
7 bien dans un trend qui s'inscrit dans une mouvance
8 internationale où le documentaire est de plus en plus
9 apprécié des publics.
10 9459 COMMISSIONER WILSON: And in fact I
11 guess a number of the interveners to this proceeding
12 have made the point that, in addition to drama,
13 considering Canada's reputation for producing
14 documentaries and the quality and how exportable they
15 are, that they really should be considered, along with
16 drama, as one of the most important ways for us to
17 express our national character.
18 9460 M. ROY: Absolument.
19 9461 MR. BUREAU: And, Madam Wilson, I
20 think that, when we talk about documentaries, we wish
21 to stress that we are not only talking about what we
22 call "les documentaires d'auteur" but we talk about
23 documentaries in its larger sense, because there are a
24 number of new categories of documentaries that are done
25 now. At the present time the Telefilm definition only
StenoTran
2034
1 talks about the documentaires d'auteur, and we wish to
2 mention here that documentaires should be much larger
3 than the definition that is currently used by Telefilm.
4 9462 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Do you have a
5 definition you would like to give us --
6 --- Power outage / Panne de courant
7 9463 MR. BUREAU: That will give us time
8 to think about it!
9 --- Short pause / Courte pause
10 9464 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I think as the
11 lights went out I was just asking if you would be able
12 to suggest a wider definition than the one that's
13 currently used by Telefilm. If you don't have it right
14 off the top of your head right now you could perhaps
15 supply it to us before the 15th of October.
16 9465 MR. ROY: Yes, we will do that. Je
17 pense que, de la même façon qu'il y a différents genres
18 de dramatiques -- il y a des séries, des mini-séries,
19 des téléfilms -- il y a aussi différents genres de
20 documentaires. Le documentaire d'auteur est un des
21 genres de documentaires, mais il y a des documentaires
22 historiques, biographiques, animaliers.
23 9466 Donc la définition de "documentaire"
24 devrait couvrir beaucoup plus de genres que celle de
25 Téléfilm, qui a été instituée à une époque où c'était
StenoTran
2035
1 d'abord du documentaire d'auteur qui se produisait et
2 dans des buts peut-être aussi de limiter la demande
3 face à des fonds qui étaient limités. Mais aujourd'hui
4 Téléfilm interprète cette définition d'une façon très
5 large et accepte d'autres genres de documentaires.
6 9467 COMMISSIONER WILSON: The other
7 suggestion that you make in terms of support for
8 under-represented program categories is that the
9 definition of original first play be adjusted, but I
10 noticed in your submission you say a program that has
11 been previously exhibited by a truly discretionary
12 service, pay or pay-per-view, and a program that is
13 exhibited for the first time on a pay or specialty
14 service in a language other than the language in which
15 it was initially exhibited by another broadcaster.
16 9468 The CFTPA has suggested a slightly
17 different adjustment of that definition of "first run",
18 and I am just wondering if you could tell me why you
19 think it should be limited to the pay and specialty and
20 not extended to conventional broadcasters. Is there
21 some reason for that?
22 9469 M. ROY: Je pense que ce sont surtout
23 les services spécialisés et les pay qui ont des
24 conditions de licence rattachées à de la production
25 originale en première fenêtre. C'est peut-être pour ça
StenoTran
2036
1 qu'on a voulu concentrer de ce côté-là. Cette mesure a
2 été instituée pour éviter les abus, afin que des
3 productions produites dans une langue ou dans une autre
4 ne soient pas doublées par la suite et deviennent des
5 productions originales.
6 9470 Alors ce que l'on propose aujourd'hui
7 pour éviter ces abus-là, c'est qu'une émission ou qu'un
8 programme soit considéré comme original en première
9 fenêtre en autant que le diffuseur y aille par
10 pré-achat, donc à l'étape de la pré-production, et donc
11 fasse partie de la structure financière, du montage
12 financier du projet, et ce, par fenêtre et par langue,
13 anglais ou français, au Canada.
14 9471 MS de WILDE: If I can just add a
15 slight precision to that, underlying the whole idea of
16 expanding the definition of what would qualify as first
17 play is a desire to promote multiple contributions from
18 different players within the system to the financing of
19 a program. So that's why we stress it is important
20 that the player come in initially, when the financing
21 is being put in place, and then what that in fact
22 produces is a bigger budget, a stronger budget and a
23 stronger program.
24 9472 So, fundamentally, we don't have a
25 problem with little differences between our suggested
StenoTran
2037
1 definition and the CFTPA's; the policy goal that we
2 would like to stress is let's encourage as many players
3 as possible to come to the table and support a given
4 program.
5 9473 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. Thanks
6 for the clarification.
7 9474 On page 2 of your Executive Summary
8 and then on page 32 of your submission you talk about
9 feature film and you say that we should ensure that
10 conventional broadcasters pay a complementary role to
11 pay and specialty services and you talk about
12 contributions on page 32, contributions by
13 non-regulated sectors involved in distribution and
14 exhibition of feature films.
15 9475 I am just wondering if you could
16 explain how you see that working.
17 9476 MS de WILDE: I would be delighted
18 to.
19 9477 The feature film industry is one that
20 is being looked at with great interest right now in
21 Canada, and I think we are at a moment that is perhaps
22 a really propitious one, but the whole area is one that
23 is extremely challenging to everybody who plays in the
24 area. It is one where the budgets for movies are, by
25 their nature, much larger than they are for other
StenoTran
2038
1 categories of programming. So the challenge is to
2 produce more and better movies in a market that also
3 faces or sits on top of the largest and most successful
4 producer of movies, namely the United States.
5 9478 So when we look at where we have been
6 successful in extracting contributions to the creation
7 of movies, we can point to the broadcasting sector, and
8 frankly the broadcasting sector, namely pay television
9 and pay-per-view, drives $23 million into the creation
10 of Canadian movies every year, which compares pretty
11 favourably to even what we managed to put together from
12 public funding to Canadian movies, which is probably in
13 the neighbourhood of about $55 million.
14 9479 So, to your question of how would we
15 harness unregulated players and get them to make a
16 contribution, that is one of the great thorny questions
17 because there is no regulatory body like the CRTC that
18 can look at video rentals, for example. So that is a
19 question that the Feature Film Policy Advisory
20 Committee is wrestling with, recognizing that we have
21 an example of something that works. Could it be
22 applied, obviously in a different way to those players
23 who aren't currently contributing back to Canadian
24 movie production although they are involved in the
25 exhibition of movies.
StenoTran
2039
1 9480 Theatrical is obviously also another
2 window that, if you could tap the revenues that are
3 generated in theatrical exhibition, that would be an
4 additional source.
5 9481 So I think, in summary, the need is
6 to find additional sources of revenue to support the
7 creation of movies.
8 9482 When we look at the role that other
9 broadcasters could play with regard to Canadian movies,
10 the point we want to stress is it is an under-financed
11 sector, so let's not do anything that would simply move
12 dollars from one portion of the broadcasting sector to
13 another portion; let's make sure that in fact in the
14 end we end up with incremental new dollars put into
15 Canadian movies.
16 9483 So, to be really clear, let's not
17 create a system where, for example, the CBC would
18 decide to buy out all of the windows for a movie
19 because at the end of the day the producer doesn't end
20 up with more dollars, all he ends up with is dollars
21 from one window instead of from another.
22 9484 That's really the two points I think
23 that are important.
24 1135
25 9485 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I would like to
StenoTran
2040
1 move now to some of the comments that you made about
2 ensuring a distinct Canadian programming rights market.
3 On page 14 of your submission you state that:
4 "A Canadian domestic market for
5 programming exhibition rights is
6 achieved as a result of a
7 complex set of legislative and
8 regulatory tools, each of which
9 is critical to maintaining a
10 sustainable Canadian
11 broadcasting system market."
12 9486 And you state that tools include the
13 licensing power held by the Commission, the Canadian
14 ownership and control rules, and oversight by the
15 Commission of U.S. satellite services which are carried
16 by licensed broadcasting distribution undertakings.
17 9487 On page 16, when you talk about the
18 list of eligible satellite services, you say:
19 "If services on the List were
20 duplicative of Canadian
21 services, the latter would find
22 themselves competing for the
23 same programming rights in the
24 Canadian market (likely on an
25 exclusive basis)."
StenoTran
2041
1 And you made this point earlier:
2 "Due to the size differentials
3 between US services and Canadian
4 services, the dominant
5 purchasing power of the US
6 services would result in their
7 successful purchase of North
8 American-wide ... rights..."
9 9488 The way you describe it, in the
10 absence of a continuing moratorium on adding services
11 to the list, it sounds like we have all the tools that
12 we need to protect Canadian programming rights, but we
13 have heard from a number of intervenors that there are
14 already foreign services doing just that, buying up
15 North American-wide rights. I am just wondering if you
16 could tell me if you are aware of this phenomenon, does
17 it have an effect on you at all, and what would you
18 suggest is the best way to try and deal with that.
19 9489 MS de WILDE: What we are suggesting
20 in enumerating those three tools is that they are
21 critical tools that give us a handle on defining a
22 separate rights market for Canada. They are not a
23 slam-dunk guarantee that an American player will decide
24 not to buy North American rights, but what it ensures
25 is that in the case of those Canadian services, they
StenoTran
2042
1 have a chance to go and buy Canadian rights.
2 9490 But if you were to take the most
3 dramatic example of an American movie service, but for
4 the fact that we have a licence for TMN or Super
5 Channel in the west, we would have no standing to go to
6 the table and talk to the U.S. studios and say, "We
7 want to buy the rights for Canada for --"
8 9491 COMMISSIONER WILSON: But for the
9 fact that you have a licence and they don't, they can't
10 come, except through the grapevine.
11 9492 MS de WILDE: That's correct, and it
12 really is one of those "but for" conditions. It's like
13 it's an essential one that you have to have the licence
14 from the Canadian regulator in order to go to the table
15 and then there is really no incentive in the case of
16 that niche -- namely, movies -- for the American
17 rightsholder to sell the rights for North America
18 because there is nobody who is authorized to distribute
19 them in Canada in the pay television window, other than
20 us and our colleagues in the west.
21 9493 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Another one of
22 the recommendations that you make is with respect to
23 redefining the role of the CBC and you stress, in
24 particular, the differences between the CBC and the
25 English-language market and the SRC in the
StenoTran
2043
1 French-language market in terms of the impact of its
2 programming strategies on these respective markets.
3 9494 I was interested in your comments
4 about CBC Radio vis-à-vis stressing the distinctiveness
5 and complementarity of the radio services. It has
6 occurred to me that CBC Radio has been very, very
7 successful in carving out its identity as a public
8 broadcaster and that TV could probably learn something
9 from it, but one of the ways you say that it has
10 developed this distinctiveness is that their approach
11 has been to withdraw completely from the advertising
12 market and I am just wondering, in view of the
13 competition posed by SRC in the French market and by
14 the CBC to a lesser extent in the English market, are
15 you suggesting that they should withdraw altogether
16 from advertising?
17 9495 MR. BUREAU: A few years ago when
18 Radio-Canada decided to go without advertising on
19 radio, it was after a long period of discussion where
20 people were talking about the terrible impact it would
21 have and things like that. Radio-Canada has shown that
22 they can offer a national service of very high quality
23 that is still very "popular" by Nielsen standards or
24 BBM standards, that it is still there, that it is still
25 being appreciated by Canadians.
StenoTran
2044
1 9496 Obviously, they had to be very
2 creative, very demanding of their people, their
3 creators and producers and everybody, but they are
4 doing a very good job, an excellent job. As a matter
5 of fact, it's a fantastic job that they are doing at
6 the present time on radio in any market and in fact
7 even against very aggressive commercial radio stations
8 they are still playing a very important, vital role in
9 any market.
10 9497 We are saying CBC and Radio-Canada --
11 and Radio-Canada probably in particular -- could
12 probably learn from that experience and what it would
13 mean is that they would probably have to -- well, be a
14 little bit more cautious, if I may use that term, in
15 terms of their way of expending their money to acquire
16 programming. It would be less frustrating for their
17 competitors in the market to see that for a program
18 that used to be bought at, let's say, $5,000 for half
19 an hour, CBC or Radio-Canada is paying two to three
20 times that amount of money now, out-bidding obviously
21 the commercial competitors.
22 9498 We are saying there has been over the
23 past few years a number of discussions involving the
24 conventional broadcasters, in particular, in the
25 French-language market saying, "We are in an unfair
StenoTran
2045
1 situation vis-à-vis la Société Radio-Canada." We are
2 saying that we are --
3 9499 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Are you in an
4 unfair position vis-à-vis Radio-Canada?
5 9500 MR. BUREAU: We are saying that from
6 a specialty service point of view, we are beginning to
7 feel the same thing. Pierre Roy might be able to add
8 to that because he is involved in Canal D, which is
9 involved in the type of programming that RDI, for
10 example, is also involved in and la Société
11 Radio-Canada is more and more involved in, although
12 they were not that involved in before l'arrivée de
13 Canal D.
14 9501 M. ROY: On parle de Canal D, mais il
15 faut parler aussi de Canal Famille.
16 9502 Radio-Canada a diminué sa production
17 originale pour enfants du côté francophone, et est
18 allée plus du côté des acquisitions. Ce faisant, on
19 est en compétition directe avec eux sur le marché des
20 acquisitions canadiennes et étrangères. Il est certain
21 qu'une chaîne de spécialités ne peut pas lutter avec un
22 diffuseur conventionnel qui jouit à la fois de fonds
23 publics et de revenus publicitaires.
24 9503 Nous subissons dramatiquement cette
25 concurrence-là, autant à Canal Famille qu'à Canal D, et
StenoTran
2046
1 c'est une concurrence déloyale tout à fait.
2 9504 Comme disait André, ils n'offrent pas
3 seulement 25 ou 50 pour cent de plus que les licences
4 qu'on est capable de payer, mais c'est souvent deux à
5 trois fois le prix qu'on offre pour des émissions.
6 Alors, c'est vraiment disproportionné comme
7 concurrence.
8 9505 MR. BUREAU: What we suggest, Madam
9 Wilson, is that there should be more collaboration --
10 more complementarity, more collaboration between la
11 Société Radio-Canada and the other ones, including the
12 conventional broadcasters or the specialty services.
13 At the present time we don't see that collaboration
14 existing and, in fact, whether it is a question of
15 movies that are acquired by CBC or la Société
16 Radio-Canada or by talking about children's programming
17 or documentaries, instead of collaborating and doing
18 things together, they use their leverage to acquire
19 exclusive rights and I don't think it's in the best
20 interests of the overall system.
21 9506 COMMISSIONER WILSON: We have had
22 quite a number of intervenors this week talking about
23 the CBC, so much so that they issued a press release
24 this morning I think talking about some of their
25 contributions, but how would you go about encouraging
StenoTran
2047
1 that more collaborative approach?
2 9507 MR. BUREAU: I hope we will have an
3 occasion to be more specific when they come for their
4 renewal. If we can wait for that, we would like to
5 participate there. We believe that CBC still has a
6 very major role to play in the Canadian broadcasting
7 system. Don't misinterpret, please, what we are
8 saying. We are saying times have changed. Everybody
9 has to adapt to the new environment and they should,
10 too. We will come up and make some suggestions.
11 9508 COMMISSIONER WILSON: So, I guess at
12 that time we can look forward to you talking a little
13 bit more about how the Commission -- you say the
14 Commission should urge the CBC to refocus on its
15 mission as a national public broadcaster. Of course,
16 when they appeared here, they showed us their schedule
17 for this year. It's very Canadian. There is maybe
18 five per cent foreign programming in it, if that, but I
19 guess we will wait to talk about that as well. I'm
20 sure you will have some specific ideas.
21 9509 With respect to stimulating Canadian
22 independent production, you state on page 20 of your
23 submission that in order to ensure a strong domestic
24 production industry on which to build an export base,
25 it will be critical to ensure maximum contributions
StenoTran
2048
1 from all Canadian broadcasters. We have heard a range
2 of proposals on what the meaning of the word "maximum"
3 should be from the broadcasters who have suggested that
4 we leave things essentially as they are now and focus
5 on viewership to the independent producers who have put
6 forward what they call their 10/10/10 plan.
7 9510 I am just wondering what you mean by
8 "maximum", if you have any specific ideas, and also
9 what do you mean by "ensure" in terms of extracting
10 this contribution. Do you have a formula in mind, are
11 there specific regulatory incentives?
12 9511 MS de WILDE: The way that we have
13 approached this issue is to look at what has worked
14 with the conditions of licence that are currently
15 applied to pay and specialty, which require a
16 percentage of every dollar of revenue earned to be
17 returned into Canadian programming. So, we think that
18 that kind of an approach, a percentage of the revenues
19 going into Canadian programming is the preferable
20 approach to tap into the contribution of the
21 conventional broadcasters.
22 9512 When it comes specifically to the
23 issue of the contribution that they would make to
24 independent production, there we believe it is
25 important that there be a specific identified
StenoTran
2049
1 contribution that does flow from conventional into
2 independent production and there we fall back on the
3 approach that the Commission has adopted with regard to
4 specialty services where there is a condition that it's
5 fine-tuned and reflects the individual circumstances,
6 the niche, the type of programming that a specific
7 service would have and we suggest that really it is
8 that kind of a case-by-case approach that does produce
9 the best result.
10 9513 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Do you think
11 that having a specific spending requirement, a per cent
12 of revenue, is more effective than the exhibition
13 requirement? Currently, they have two options. They
14 can choose from A or B. I think a couple of networks
15 have combined, but do you feel that it's sufficient to
16 require the percentage without some exhibition
17 requirements as well?
18 9514 MS de WILDE: We believe that both
19 requirements are part of the tool kit and you need to
20 have the supply and then you need to have the
21 exhibition and that both are required.
22 9515 COMMISSIONER WILSON: One of the --
23 in fact a number of the intervenors to this process
24 have said essentially the same thing, that if we are
25 creating programming for export, it's not Canadian
StenoTran
2050
1 programming. I am just wondering if you could comment
2 on whether you see the two as mutually exclusive, if we
3 should be following two separate strategies in terms of
4 funding programming, one industrial strategy, one
5 cultural strategy, or do we find some way just to
6 satisfy both needs within the one system?
7 9516 M. ROY: Je pense que la première
8 condition pour réussir à l'exportation, il faut d'abord
9 avoir accès à un marché domestique important. Donc,
10 toutes les règles qui encouragent la production de
11 programmation canadienne doivent être d'abord en place
12 pour maximiser cette production canadienne, et ensuite
13 établir un marché domestique fort, et ensuite avoir
14 peut-être accès à l'exportation.
15 9517 Il y a des choses qui nous inquiètent
16 un peu actuellement quand on regarde les nouvelles
17 règles du Fonds canadien de télévision. La notion de
18 "super Canadian", on pense que c'est une notion qui
19 peut-être a sa place au Canada anglais pour éviter
20 certains abus, certaines séries américaines qui peuvent
21 être déguisées en séries canadiennes. Peut-être que
22 cette notion est nécessaire pour éviter ces abus-là,
23 mais pour nous au Canada français, on pense qu'on n'a
24 pas à s'inquiéter de cette notion-là. Nos productions
25 sont généralement fortement canadiennes. Le nombre de
StenoTran
2051
1 points, de 10 sur 10 ou 8 sur 10, est très très élevé.
2 9518 Donc, nous redoutons un peu cette
3 notion de super canadienne, puisqu'elle pourrait
4 affecter notre capacité de coproduction.
5 9519 Contrairement au Canada anglais, qui
6 trouve une partie de son financement sur le marché
7 international par le biais de pré-vente, au Canada
8 français ce sont plutôt des coproductions qui sont
9 mises en place pour assurer le financement de
10 productions importantes.
11 9520 Pour donner des pourcentages, le
12 niveau de coproductions au Canada anglais est autour de
13 17 pour cent, et au Canada français, il est d'environ
14 50 pour cent du volume de production. Donc, on voit
15 bien que ces règles-là pourraient être dommageables si
16 elles étaient appliquées d'une façon universelle au
17 Canada français et au Canada anglais.
18 9521 MR. RILEY: Commissioner Wilson, if I
19 could just add one point, some of the discussion a
20 couple of days ago centred around children's
21 programming and particularly animation. A lot of
22 children's programming, including children's animation,
23 doesn't take place anywhere, especially animation. One
24 of Teletoon's tag lines is "It's unreal" because it
25 takes place somewhere in a fantasy land.
StenoTran
2052
1 9522 So, the danger of requiring that a
2 maple leaf or a beaver appear in the program so that it
3 is identifiably Canadian, so that it qualifies for
4 funding, would, in our view, seriously be to the
5 detriment of the funding of children's programming,
6 which, of course, is one of the goals.
7 9523 So, in any effort to determine what
8 is the appropriate use of those funds, in addition to
9 balancing what is distinctly Canadian, one must also
10 look at what are the goals of that funding, and that is
11 to create a certain kind of programming. That is one
12 area, children's programming and particularly
13 animation, that might be overlooked in this effort to
14 come up with something that is intrinsically or
15 distinctively Canadian.
16 9524 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That's a good
17 point. I guess what I am trying to get at is just your
18 views on whether or not -- and maybe this goes to the
19 point that you are making, Mr. Riley -- industrial
20 programming is really strong enough to stand on its own
21 and that we shouldn't be giving funds to that area,
22 that we should be funding only Canadian programming,
23 whether it's animation and it's not set in a specific
24 place. I understand, I take your point. We met Dudley
25 the Dragon the other day in person.
StenoTran
2053
1 9525 That's really the point that I am
2 trying to get at is that there have been some
3 suggestions that industrial programming such as
4 "Traders" or "Cold Squad" or "Due South" don't really
5 need the support of the public funds, that the public
6 funds should go more towards making that stronger sort
7 of domestic programming.
8 1150
9 9526 MR. BUREAU: I am not sure it is that
10 simple. I think that, if we were to look at the
11 category of documentaries, for example, we would see
12 that good documentaries that are produced in Canada
13 here, or are co-produced, as Pierre has alluded to, can
14 travel, can be exported, and they are essentially done
15 by Canadians, but they still have very a very large
16 attraction outside of the Canadian market. So they
17 don't need to be what you call the industrial type of
18 programs.
19 9527 We believe that they are pure
20 documentaries and we would have to be careful not to
21 deprive access to the Canadian funds for some
22 documentaries that would be done that would involve,
23 because of their nature, the history of the world at
24 some point because it would be the essence, for
25 example, of those series of documentaries, whether they
StenoTran
2054
1 are biographies or whether they are on history like the
2 war or things like that. It is pretty difficult to
3 imagine how you could get to be that super Canadian if
4 we were to try to give a view of what has happened
5 during the war overall, not just in Pointe-du-Lac.
6 9528 So we would have to determine how it
7 could have access to that and I think that we have to
8 be careful not to close the access to the funding for
9 these types of programs.
10 9529 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. The next
11 area that I was going to talk to you about was direct
12 access by the broadcasters to the funds, but in your
13 oral presentation this morning you actually answered
14 the question that I had prepared, which was -- well,
15 actually, maybe you haven't.
16 9530 They want greater access to the
17 Equity Investment Program, the broadcasters or
18 broadcaster-affiliated production companies, and one of
19 the arguments that they are making is that they believe
20 it is incongruous that production companies who hold
21 specialty licences like Atlantis Alliance -- or
22 Alliance Atlantis, I can't remember which one it is --
23 hold broadcasting licences and they have access, so why
24 shouldn't they.
25 9531 You said this morning, we suggest
StenoTran
2055
1 that all conventional broadcasters be required to
2 devote a percentage of their Canadian programming
3 expenses to programming produced by non-affiliated
4 companies and that their access should be limited to
5 productions that the broadcaster cannot exhibit in
6 their first window.
7 9532 So, with appropriate safeguards in
8 place, would you feel comfortable with their access?
9 9533 MR. BUREAU: I think that it is
10 something that needs to be monitored over time, but,
11 yes, we have tried to come up with a solution to the
12 debate that has been going on between those who say no
13 access at all and those who say, well, why not, because
14 our competitors in the specialty services have access.
15 9534 So we are saying, all right, let's
16 try to establish a fair type of approach provided that
17 they don't use that money to produce a program or a
18 series or whatever to be exhibited in the first window
19 on their own service. If it is not the case, then, let
20 them have access. But keep in mind that if it were to
21 end up depriving the independent production sector of
22 the money they need to remain strong, there will be an
23 impact, and that impact will be felt very dramatically
24 by the sector of the specialty services.
25 9535 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. I guess
StenoTran
2056
1 another issue that you raised this morning in your
2 submission with respect to the funds was, you suggested
3 the allocation of 50 per cent of the financial
4 resources of the CTF to productions intended for the
5 CBC/SRC needs to be reviewed because it has become
6 disproportionate to the actual weight of the public
7 broadcaster in the Canadian television universe.
8 9536 I wonder if you could just expand a
9 little bit more on that.
10 9537 M. ROY: Quand le pourcentage de 50
11 pour cent a été établi, il existait beaucoup moins de
12 télévision conventionnelles et certainement presque pas
13 de services spécialisés, et ce pourcentage-là est
14 demeuré le même au cours des années après l'ajout de
15 chaînes conventionnelles -- on parle de TQS par exemple
16 au Québec -- de nombreux services spécialisés et qui
17 doivent se partager toujours un 50 pour cent dans des
18 pointes de plus en plus petites.
19 9538 Alors quand on prend le poids relatif
20 de la CBC dans la programmation canadienne, son poids
21 relatif au niveau du volume de production canadienne
22 est d'environ un-tiers pour la CBC et deux-tiers pour
23 le reste de l'industrie, et on pense que ça pourrait
24 servir de barème plus réaliste pour faire face à la
25 nouvelle situation que l'on vit aujourd'hui, sans
StenoTran
2057
1 compter les nouvelles licences qui seront accordées
2 éventuellement et qui viendront encore diminuer chacun
3 des morceaux qu'on à se partager dans le 50 pour cent
4 actuel.
5 9539 COMMISSIONER WILSON: And yet there
6 are some who might say that the CBC really bears the
7 burden of exhibiting Canadian programming and
8 supporting Canadian programming, that the conventional
9 broadcasters, with their prime time schedules
10 essentially full of American programming --
11 9540 M. ROY: Du côté des services
12 spécialisés, nous, on a des engagements très fermes à
13 diffuser de la programmation canadienne, on a des
14 ressources beaucoup plus petites que les
15 conventionnelles...
16 9541 COMMISSIONER WILSON: That's true.
17 9542 M. ROY: ... on a des ressources de
18 revenus de publicité beaucoup plus limitées, et donc
19 ces fonds-là sont essentiels pour permettre le
20 financement de programmation canadienne de qualité,
21 comme ce à quoi s'attend le public.
22 9543 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Thank you.
23 9544 You made another point in your oral
24 submission this morning on the contribution of
25 non-Canadian services and you say that you agree with
StenoTran
2058
1 the suggestion made by SPTV to use all advertising
2 avails on U.S. satellite services to promote Canadian
3 programming and Canadian services. There have been
4 other suggestions that we should actually find some way
5 of extracting some kind of financial contribution from
6 them to Canadian programming, but I wonder if you could
7 just expand on that a little bit more.
8 9545 MR. RILEY: The idea of harnessing
9 some sort of contribution is a good one, and looking
10 for ways to do so involves a number of I guess impacts,
11 including cross-jurisdictional impacts; for example,
12 with respect to saying, well, a certain percentage of
13 the wholesale fee must go to the CTF fund may involve
14 simply an increase in the actual wholesale fee. So, in
15 other words, if the price was X and 5 or 25 per cent
16 was required now to be put into the fund, I think in
17 pretty short order you would see the price of those
18 U.S. services be X plus that 5 or 25 per cent, which
19 doesn't I think achieve the goal that was --
20 9546 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Or passes it
21 through to the consumer.
22 9547 MR. RILEY: Essentially, that's what
23 it does; it goes right through and it doesn't achieve
24 that particular goal, it is just an increase in the
25 price.
StenoTran
2059
1 9548 So that's why we suggested that at
2 least at a starting point all the use of the avails
3 would be something that can be done quite simply, quite
4 directly, and without maybe an unintended consequence
5 that doesn't, in the long run, benefit.
6 9549 COMMISSIONER WILSON: I am just
7 wondering if you floated this idea to any of the U.S.
8 services and what their response might have been.
9 9550 MS de WILDE: Well, they didn't laugh
10 right in my face; in fact, I had the beginnings of
11 serious conversations with a couple of them and they
12 don't walk away nor do they tell me that I am crazy.
13 So I thought that was a very good beginning.
14 9551 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Maybe they were
15 just being polite.
16 9552 MS de WILDE: It doesn't usually
17 happen to me.
18 9553 COMMISSIONER WILSON: People aren't
19 usually polite to you?
20 9554 MS de WILDE: Not just to be polite.
21 9555 MR. RILEY: Another point is that the
22 U.S. services, when selling those advertising avails,
23 not in all cases is there payment for the Canadian
24 market because quite often the product being sold is
25 one that even if a Canadian says, "Oh, that's terrific,
StenoTran
2060
1 I really like that", it is one that's not going to be
2 purchased in the United States or is not available in
3 Canada. So it is not as if it is removing something
4 that's already there or something that has been paid
5 for and depriving the advertiser of a benefit that the
6 advertiser has paid for.
7 9556 MR. BUREAU: But let's not kid
8 ourselves, they will feel that this is something that
9 is hurting them --
10 9557 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Sure.
11 9558 MR. BUREAU: -- and what we are
12 saying is that we are trying to find a way where the
13 consequence will not be an immediate increase in the
14 price that will have to be borne by the subscribers.
15 1200
16 9559 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. You did
17 submit a lot of material with respect to the role and
18 the impact of pay and specialty services on the
19 Canadian broadcasting system. We will be exploring
20 that issue in a fair amount of detail with SPTV when
21 they appear, so I am not going to go through all of
22 that with the exception of one of the proposals that
23 you made which I was fascinated. It's nice to actually
24 have somebody offer something up, the 2 per cent
25 digital kicker.
StenoTran
2061
1 9560 I wonder if you would just like to
2 explain what prompted that largesse.
3 9561 MR. BUREAU: We are used to being
4 very generous with cable.
5 9562 MS de WILDE: In all seriousness, the
6 rollout of digitable cable is something that is of
7 pivotal significance to the pay television sector in
8 particular. What we did was we said, you know, piracy
9 is such a huge problem that if an incremental
10 expenditure on Canadian programming could help to
11 trigger regulatory attention to it, it's a really good
12 tradeoff from our point of view.
13 9563 When you think about the way in which
14 digital technology, really new encryption technology,
15 would change the revenues and hence the contribution of
16 pay-tv, we just find it a very exciting vision of the
17 world. We are more than prepared to step up to the
18 plate on that. I mean, what it amounts to is it would
19 increase our Canadian content spending by about 10 per
20 cent. We think that that's something that we are
21 prepared to do.
22 9564 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Thanks.
23 9565 Mr. Bureau, I would just like to ask
24 you to comment on a couple of things for me. The first
25 one is the CAB's viewership model. I'm just wondering
StenoTran
2062
1 if you have given any thought to how this would
2 increase not only the quality but the quantity of
3 Canadian programming.
4 9566 I have been trying to come up with
5 sort of the business case for it, it's viewership, it's
6 greater ad sales equals higher contribution to Canadian
7 programming, but how do we get that out of this model?
8 I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts.
9 9567 MR. BUREAU: That's one case where I
10 didn't feel any frustration at being sitting in your
11 place. When I heard that proposal the first day of the
12 hearing, I was trying to understand it and, quite
13 frankly, I'm not sure I do still understand exactly how
14 it would work and how it would improve the situation.
15 9568 I'm not saying that in a
16 self-deprecating way. I am really looking at it.
17 Until your colleague asked a very specific question and
18 said that 35 per cent objective or goal that you are
19 talking about, would that include the audience from CBC
20 and the specialty services, and the answer was
21 obviously yes.
22 9569 That I don't understand because the
23 32 per cent I had understood was for conventional, the
24 existing conventional level of audience. We are
25 probably already above the 35 per cent if you add to
StenoTran
2063
1 that the audience to the specialty, and CBC in
2 particular.
3 9570 I'm not sure I understand the
4 fundamentals of this proposal there. Maybe it's my
5 limited understanding of the proposal that makes me
6 feel nervous about making further comments on that.
7 9571 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Okay. One
8 other comment that came out of the CAB presentation was
9 one of their consultants who was with TD Security said,
10 and he was actually quoted in Maclean's magazine this
11 week, to put it bluntly from a financial standpoint,
12 Canadian programming is a cost of doing business.
13 I just wonder if --
14 9572 MR. BUREAU: I couldn't believe it
15 when I heard that.
16 9573 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's when the
17 lights went out.
18 9574 MR. BUREAU: Surely as far as I am
19 concerned it happened.
20 9575 COMMISSIONER WILSON: It's clear why
21 he is in securities and not sitting up here, for
22 example.
23 9576 MR. BUREAU: It has been the story of
24 the Canadian broadcasting system.
25 9577 COMMISSIONER WILSON: But is there
StenoTran
2064
1 any truth to that comment?
2 9578 MR. BUREAU: Excuse me?
3 9579 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Is there any
4 truth to that comment in your mind that it is just a
5 cost of doing business?
6 9580 MR. BUREAU: There are some aspects
7 of it that are true, but listen. We are successful
8 with Canadian programming. We are successful with
9 Canadian programming in categories that are
10 under-represented categories.
11 9581 I can't believe that I would hear
12 something like that from a broadcaster. Thank God,
13 he's not.
14 9582 COMMISSIONER WILSON: No, he's not.
15 9583 MR. BUREAU: Thank God he's not our
16 banker. I just couldn't believe it. It is, of course,
17 the basis for the maintenance of a strong, distinctive
18 Canadian broadcasting system that we have to invest in
19 Canadian programming. If he has not understood that, I
20 don't know what he was doing for the CAB in particular.
21 I can't believe it.
22 9584 MS de WILDE: But in fact it all
23 depends on how far back you step to look at what he's
24 suggesting. I think he was looking at it from rather
25 close up and saying "It's a line item on the P&L and it
StenoTran
2065
1 doesn't pay out when I calculate the advertising
2 dollars that I receive from each hour".
3 9585 Where we would look at it is from
4 slightly further back which is, frankly, our raison
5 d'etre. If we weren't delivering Canadian programming
6 to Canadian viewers, there would be a very weak
7 argument for why we have the privilege of regulatory
8 licences and the regulatory licences are the
9 underpinnings of our businesses.
10 9586 I think he was just honing in a
11 little bit too narrowly on the P&L, quite frankly, and
12 not looking back at what underpins the assets.
13 9587 MR. BUREAU: Thank you, Lisa.
14 9588 COMMISSIONER WILSON: You're looking
15 a little flushed, Mr. Bureau.
16 9589 MR. BUREAU: That's why I never come
17 alone.
18 9590 COMMISSIONER WILSON: Those are my
19 questions, Madam Chair.
20 9591 Thank you very much.
21 9592 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
22 Pennefather.
23 9593 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.
24 9594 Well, now that Life has got you
25 going, I think we will continue. Another area --
StenoTran
2066
1 9595 MS de WILDE: I thought that might
2 get a rise.
3 9596 MR. BUREAU: I heard. Don't you
4 dare.
5 9597 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Okay.
6 Well, I have a question for Madam de Wilde as well in
7 an area she is passionate about.
8 9598 What I want to talk to you about, Mr.
9 Bureau, Commissioner Wilson raised the rights issue.
10 You are very clear on the importance of maintaining
11 rights in this country. Madam de Wilde also spoke to
12 three basis elements in the current regulatory
13 framework, licensing, the ownership, direction and
14 regulations such as the eligible risks.
15 9599 That being said, considering as you
16 mentioned earlier your own involvement in a number of
17 ways with the whole issue of changing international
18 environment and the trade environment, are these three
19 tools going to be sufficient? Will they run into very
20 serious problems soon in terms of particularly the
21 American reactions to our ability, in fact, to maintain
22 this framework? Are there other tools we should be
23 exploring now to assure that we do maintain a separate
24 market for products in this country?
25 9600 MR. BUREAU: Well, I guess first of
StenoTran
2067
1 all these tools have worked pretty well. Of course,
2 they are being discussed and some foreign countries'
3 representatives would like to have them modified.
4 9601 Our government has up to now made
5 sure that we wouldn't change our position on these
6 issues. Frankly, it's not a new debate. These issues
7 have been there and have been debated for the past 30
8 years. The objectives of the rightholders in the
9 United States have been the same since then. They are
10 a little bit more cautious now in terms of what they
11 say, but at times where they are sitting with
12 international forums, they come back and they try again
13 to modify those rules because what we have done here is
14 being a model for what is being developed in other
15 countries.
16 9602 The thorn that we represent for the
17 United States to be able to have free access to the
18 rest of the world, this damn thing that is existing in
19 Canada, so if they could change it here, they would be
20 probably free. It would be easy for them to go around
21 the world.
22 9603 We are the first to be attacked.
23 There is no question about that. At the regulation, I
24 think that the tools that we have have worked well and
25 we should maintain them and make sure that we don't
StenoTran
2068
1 abandon them.
2 9604 At the level of policy, at the level
3 of government policy, there are other ways of facing
4 those attacks or facing those demands. I believe that
5 this is probably where new tools are being developed or
6 will be developed to try and ensure the strengthening
7 of our broadcasting system vis-à-vis on that specific
8 question and support that needs to be maintained.
9 9605 I am sure that there are new tools
10 that are being contemplated. We have heard about some
11 of them and whether they are new forms of treaties, I
12 mean international basis, whether they are support from
13 other countries that are being gathered around these
14 ideas and are being supportive of these, but that's at
15 another level, at the level that will continue to
16 maintain the support for our regulatory approach.
17 9606 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.
18 That gives me some comfort. I know these issues are
19 not new, but there are certain new elements, I believe,
20 in the international trade discussions which I think we
21 must take a practical realistic look at.
22 9607 I wanted to ask Madam de Wilde on
23 digital. Commissioner Wilson did go back to you on the
24 piracy matter. You mentioned digital rollout and its
25 importance from the point of view of encryption. I'm
StenoTran
2069
1 sure you also were referring it to from the point of
2 access for Canadians to a number of services.
3 9608 You didn't comment on digital in
4 terms of production and in terms of supply of Canadian
5 programs for the digital universe. Do you have any
6 comments on how ready we are or not, certainly from
7 your point of view, in terms of taking a Canadian
8 presence as services convert to digital?
9 9609 MS de WILDE: I probably don't have a
10 lot of details to add to that discussion. It certainly
11 is an issue that we look out at when we do three year
12 plans to understand what's coming up. There are some
13 portions of our businesses, movies in particular, where
14 the transition to digital will not be very difficult.
15 9610 When it comes to things that would be
16 more in the nature of a series, it will require changes
17 in the plant. It's coming and we all recognize that we
18 have to get ready for it.
19 9611 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: You
20 mentioned a working group in your presentation this
21 morning. Could you expand on that and how it relates
22 to current groups such as Canadian Digital Television?
23 9612 MS de WILDE: Thank you. It is in
24 fact an idea that is much narrower in focus than
25 Michael McEwen's digital television group. As I
StenoTran
2070
1 understand his effort, and we are part of that as well,
2 it is something that is looking at the whole
3 infrastructure from transmission through to television
4 sets whereas the issue that we are raising is the
5 really much more narrowly focused one of how do you
6 roll out digital distribution on the cable plant.
7 9613 What we are suggesting is that in the
8 same way that the Commission chaired some working
9 groups in order to push through some of the tougher
10 issues of competition in the telecommunications
11 services, we think that it would be really useful for
12 the Commission to set up a working group for the
13 Commission to chair a working group that would put
14 around the table all of the players who have an
15 interest in helping to develop a business plan that
16 will work.
17 9614 We all recognize that it has been
18 difficult to come up with that business plan, but we
19 recognize it is really important and we as pay
20 television services are more than prepared to
21 contribute to that exercise. There are undoubtedly
22 others in the industry who also have some ideas.
23 9615 What we need to find is additional
24 sources of revenue. We know that pay television will
25 derive some additional revenues with the rollout of
StenoTran
2071
1 digital. There will be new media services that will
2 also provide a source of new revenues. We need to look
3 at whether there are creative regulatory incentives
4 that could help to make it fly. That's the kind of
5 exercise that we had in mind.
6 9616 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.
7 9617 Thank you, Madam Chair.
8 9618 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
9 Cardozo.
10 9619 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Thanks, Madam
11 Chair.
12 9620 A couple of questions. One of the
13 issues that was put before us a couple of days ago was
14 the matter of reflection of aboriginal people on TV.
15 This was on a presentation by Television Northern
16 Canada. Their sense was that there was very little
17 reflection of aboriginal people and usually when there
18 is, it's negative or stereotyped.
19 9621 I wonder if you have any thoughts or
20 how you approach this issue in the programming that you
21 do.
22 9622 MS de WILDE: In all of our
23 acquisitions or in the investment decisions that we
24 would make at the level of the pay networks, we use the
25 pay-tv standards and practices as an essential element
StenoTran
2072
1 of any discussion that we have with a potential
2 producer.
3 9623 It is part of the mix that is put on
4 the table and the producers would understand that we
5 are looking for stories that reflect Canada. You know,
6 that's something that at the level of our
7 Vice-Presidents of Programming in particular, you know,
8 they have a mandate to help to trigger, be it series or
9 movies or made for pay television movies, that we will
10 add something to our programming mix that is Canadian.
11 9624 It is a challenge. It's something
12 that is part of our mandate.
13 9625 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Your networks
14 are involved in purchasing and commissioning
15 programming.
16 9626 MS de WILDE: When we look at movies,
17 in fact, you know, we have a role, but we are one of
18 the players at the table.
19 9627 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Yes. I am
20 wondering if you do it more in Family as opposed to
21 TMN.
22 9628 MS de WILDE: Yes. I think I should
23 turn to Len Cochrane who can talk to you about the
24 Family channel experience.
25 9629 MR. COCHRANE: I think, Commissioner,
StenoTran
2073
1 that one of the great things that Teletoon or Family
2 Channel or Canal Famille does is not only buy from the
3 large independent but very much the small independent.
4 We're not sure we help create. We develop scripts.
5 9630 I think they come from all walks of
6 life. It's one of the great challenges that we have,
7 spending a huge amount of time with those new guys on
8 the block and seeing something on the screen gives us a
9 tremendous amount of pride.
10 9631 The ability for aboriginal or guys
11 who are animators who decide that they are going to try
12 and produce a series, it's very important for us, and
13 we all spend a lot of time with those small guys.
14 9632 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: I don't want
15 to be putting you on the spot, but I wonder if you have
16 suggestions. I don't want to put you on the spot about
17 what you have or haven't done, but do you have any
18 suggestions about how to -- if you think that there is
19 room to reflect aboriginal people more on television --
20 if you have any suggestions as to how it can be done at
21 the level of what you are doing.
22 9633 MR. RILEY: I might be able to give
23 actually a precise example. First of all, Teletoon
24 launched this year a program which in this case is
25 distinctively Canadian, "Nanook of the North", which
StenoTran
2074
1 was a program that was launched this September.
2 Actually, the ratings have been quite strong for the
3 program.
4 9634 It's an adventure series based on the
5 stories of Nanook. The producers in question consulted
6 with aboriginal sources in the making of the series, so
7 it was true to the heritage.
8 9635 In all of our cases, I think what can
9 be done and what we do is to try and do the best job of
10 making ourselves available everywhere to give everyone
11 access and an opportunity to approach the network. For
12 example, we have a person that is specifically hired to
13 source out programming proposals from everywhere and
14 from everyone.
15 9636 The Ottawa Animation Film Festival is
16 taking place this week as we speak. We have
17 representatives, in fact that person, that developer of
18 new projects, is here.
19 9637 Last year the very successful
20 Animation Festival also launched a student animation
21 festival. We again appeared there. Everyone has
22 access to our network and we look at every single
23 proposal, as evidenced by some of the programming
24 that's appearing there. I know that's the same with
25 the rest of the networks that are in the group.
StenoTran
2075
1 9638 I think we can continue to make
2 efforts in that area to develop those kinds of
3 projects.
4 1220
5 9639 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: One of the
6 things -- that's very helpful, by the way -- that
7 television really in Canada pointed out was that the
8 CPF had set aside $1 million -- $2 million; $1 million
9 from each of the funds -- for aboriginal programming,
10 and they were pointing out that in fact that was below
11 the proportion of people; 2.8 per cent of the Canadian
12 population is aboriginal whereas 1 per cent of the fund
13 was reserved for that type of programming, programming
14 by aboriginal producers.
15 9640 What are your thoughts about that
16 idea of whatever the percentage is, and be it CPF or
17 one of the funds such as the one you are announcing
18 today, of having monies targeted to under-represented
19 categories within the under-represented categories? Do
20 you think that's a worthwhile way to go?
21 9641 MR. BUREAU: Mr. Cardozo, I think
22 that in fact Canadian broadcasters have been the first
23 in the world to really put on television the people
24 that form the diverse country that we are and the
25 ethnic people, the different kinds of people that are
StenoTran
2076
1 forming part of this country here. Over the years we
2 have been very successful at doing that. We should in
3 fact do something about that.
4 9642 I am not sure that we have the exact
5 answer to your question this morning, but we should
6 find a way because they are really part of our lives.
7 So we should have them on television, or behind if they
8 are producing something, but I cannot give you a more
9 precise answer.
10 9643 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Okay, that's
11 fine. I guess part of that is whether we look at it as
12 just a social objective or whether there is a business
13 case in the whole issue of reflecting --
14 9644 MR. BUREAU: Hopefully, it will be
15 both.
16 9645 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Yes.
17 9646 The other question I just wanted to
18 ask you was with regard to CBC. You mentioned that
19 they come in and outbid you not by a few per cent but
20 two or three times the amount. I am wondering if part
21 of your thinking is that the reason their numbers in
22 terms of Canadian programming are so much higher than
23 others is because they are able to do that or they do
24 that, and if they weren't in a market, would everybody
25 else's numbers in terms of Canadian programming be much
StenoTran
2077
1 higher? Would you be able to afford a whole lot more
2 Canadian programming if CBC wasn't betting at the high
3 rates that they are, or was your question more just in
4 terms of buying American programming?
5 9647 M. BUREAU: Ce n'est pas seulement en
6 fonction des achats de programmation américaine, c'est
7 pour tous leurs achats que le problème se retrouve. Je
8 pense qu'il y a une différence de moyens. On est liés
9 à des budgets qui sont liés à nos revenus, qui sont
10 beaucoup plus limités. On n'a pas l'argent public dont
11 jouit la CBC pour supporter cette compétition-là.
12 9648 On a une profitabilité à assurer à
13 nos actionnaires au bout de l'année, alors on ne peut
14 pas comme ça "bidder" sur des programmes d'une façon
15 inconsidérée puisqu'on n'arriverait pas à maintenir une
16 business viable au bout du compte.
17 9649 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So is it your
18 view -- and I am pushing you a little bit here because
19 you didn't quite say this, but I am wondering if behind
20 what you are saying is that perhaps they are inflating
21 the market, and if they weren't doing that, you and
22 others would be able to do more Canadian programming.
23 9650 MS de WILDE: I think what we are
24 trying to say about the CBC is that, if they viewed
25 their role as less competitive with the private sector
StenoTran
2078
1 and as more of playing a complementary and distinct
2 role, they then wouldn't attack their advertising sales
3 with ferocity, which in turn leads them to be willing
4 to pay higher amounts for a program because they
5 believe it will in turn support those advertising
6 sales.
7 9651 So it is really when you step back
8 and you say, if their role were different and they
9 weren't going after advertising revenues with the same
10 vigour, they would be, of course, forced to react to
11 their lower revenues by playing a different role when
12 it came to program acquisitions.
13 9652 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: So it is not
14 just a matter of licence fees but advertising as well?
15 9653 MS de WILDE: I think it is the two
16 ends of the equation.
17 9654 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: All right. In
18 a sentence, what would that unique role be for the CBC
19 that would not be other people's role?
20 9655 MR. BUREAU: Ah-ha! You are trying
21 to draw us into the next process.
22 9656 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: Yes, I guess I
23 am.
24 9657 MR. BUREAU: I think, in order to be
25 fair with la Société Radio-Canada and CBC, we should,
StenoTran
2079
1 at the time of their renewal, have a complete image of
2 what they want to do and a reaction that is based on
3 what is their plan for the future. We sincerely hope
4 at this point in time that the words "complementary"
5 and "collaboration" will mean something in fact in the
6 future of la société d'État and that we will see in
7 their plans for their renewal something that will
8 indicate to us that they are transforming their role a
9 little bit to adapt it to the new environment.
10 9658 They are not the only ones providing
11 programming to all Canadians any more. That's not the
12 case any more. So maybe they should do something
13 different, and by doing something different, they may
14 not need the same type of programming or the same type
15 of money or subsidies or access to advertising --
16 maybe. We will see.
17 9659 COMMISSIONER CARDOZO: And if they
18 don't, then, we will count on you to give us the magic
19 answer to my question.
20 9660 Thanks very much.
21 9661 Thanks, Madam Chair.
22 9662 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
23 McKendry.
24 9663 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you,
25 Madam Chair.
StenoTran
2080
1 9664 I couldn't pass up the opportunity,
2 Mr. Bureau, to ask you a question, having sat where you
3 are sitting now while you asked me questions from up
4 here.
5 9665 MR. BUREAU: I hope you will be more
6 kind to me than I was to you.
7 9666 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Always. But
8 let me begin by saying it is very refreshing to be
9 reminded of your passion for things Canadian, and we
10 appreciate people coming to our hearing room and
11 speaking with passion about these things -- and please
12 come by yourself if you want. We welcome passion here.
13 9667 I am going to touch on something
14 Commissioner Wilson raised with you and Commissioner
15 Cardozo just raised too where, when you were speaking
16 to Commissioner Wilson, you said everybody has to adapt
17 to the new environment, and so should the CBC.
18 9668 My question really isn't about the
19 CBC, but I want to make sure I understand the new
20 environment from your perspective. Is it one of
21 fragmentation? Is that what you mean?
22 9669 MR. BUREAU: Well, it is one where we
23 have seen the number of services that are offered to
24 the Canadian population increase in a fantastic way,
25 where the quality of programming has increased, where
StenoTran
2081
1 the thematic approaches have developed to the point
2 where a number of the things that only CBC was offering
3 in the past are now being offered, with quality, by
4 other services.
5 9670 So, in my mind, it raises the
6 question of, all right, now, since some of the things
7 that we were the only ones or almost the only ones to
8 offer with high quality are now being available at some
9 other address, should we not try to concentrate on some
10 of the other things that remain not completely taken
11 care of, or should we take the other way around and
12 evacuate those things into specialty services?
13 9671 I think that this is the overall
14 picture. I didn't want to be drawn into a discussion
15 about the specialty services, but you almost forced me
16 to go there.
17 9672 My feeling is that the CBC and
18 Radio-Canada are trying to develop their almost
19 business as do conventional broadcasters or specialty
20 broadcasters, and I am not sure that this is the way
21 for la Société d'État to look at its own role in the
22 future. And I am nervous that at some point the
23 government might say, "Why do we need la société
24 d'État, since it is doing in a large part what others
25 are already doing?"
StenoTran
2082
1 9673 I think that for the sake of
2 maintaining, within a unique and distinctive Canadian
3 broadcasting system, a unique and distinctive role for
4 la société d'État, it is important that they look at
5 the environment and determine where can they play a
6 very specific role.
7 9674 In 1983 or 1984 I believe -- and that
8 shows you my age -- the government published I believe
9 it was a blue book in those years, I don't remember
10 exactly the colour, but I remember that Francis Fox was
11 Minister of Communications at the time and Mr. Juneau I
12 believe was at Radio-Canada.
13 9675 Mr. Fox came out with a book that
14 defined, even then, what should be the complementary
15 role of the CBC. Boy! It was shot in flame by
16 Mr. Juneau, who decided that he would have to be at the
17 Cabinet to fight against those silly ideas, and at some
18 point he became a member of the Cabinet. But, anyway,
19 the fact remains that even then there was, within the
20 government, some thinking about what should be the role
21 of the société d'État vis-à-vis the rest.
22 9676 Well, if at that time it was
23 important for them to look at that and define the
24 complementary role, imagine today. And I am always
25 nervous that at some point somebody at the government
StenoTran
2083
1 level will ask the question, and I think we need a CBC
2 or Société Radio-Canada but with probably a more
3 focused role is in general what I would suggest.
4 1230
5 9677 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you
6 very much.
7 9678 Let me ask a question now about theft
8 of your services, or Pay TV services, and the
9 conversion of the cable network to digital.
10 9679 My understanding is that in the
11 United States, the FCC has mandated that the set-top
12 box will have a separate security pod that will be
13 provided by the cable operator, and the box will be a
14 retail item that consumers will buy in retail outlets.
15 9680 Are you comfortable that the security
16 pod approach, where the security is not integrated into
17 the box, will provide the kind of security that you are
18 looking for?
19 9681 MS de WILDE: Yes, we are. Not only
20 does it provide new security, but it provides security
21 that can be changed when inevitably it is corrupted and
22 we have to find another way to shut down people who
23 have figured out a way around it.
24 9682 In other words, we don't delude
25 ourselves that it is the answer that will solve all of
StenoTran
2084
1 our problems forever. I think everybody who works with
2 encrypted data knows that it is an ongoing challenge.
3 9683 But the beauty, as I understand it,
4 of the digital approach to encryption, and especially
5 the cards that you are adverting to, is that you can
6 change the cards -- on an infrequent basis, one
7 hopes -- in order to keep one step ahead of them.
8 9684 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: You don't
9 anticipate that cable operators would be reluctant to
10 change the cards frequently due to the cost of
11 distributing new cards to their customers?
12 9685 MS de WILDE: There will undoubtedly
13 be challenging discussions in that regard. But it is
14 important to keep in mind that we do both share an
15 interest in shutting down pirates. Cable loses money
16 and we lose money.
17 9686 The difficulty that we are
18 confronting right now is that we are at that ugly point
19 in the technology conversion cycle where no one wants
20 to leap forward and fix it until it is a big fix;
21 namely, a transition from analog to digital.
22 9687 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: In any event,
23 you would prefer the card or pod approach to security
24 integrated into the set-top box.
25 9688 MS de WILDE: It seems to me that it
StenoTran
2085
1 is more flexible.
2 9689 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you.
3 9690 Those are my questions, Madam Chair.
4 9691 THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms de Wilde, when
5 you say that you need a 2 percent kicker, I think what
6 you said was to get the regulator to pay attention to
7 digital employment and encryption.
8 9692 That criticism is of course levied at
9 former Commissioners.
10 9693 MS de WILDE: And former Commission
11 counsel.
12 9694 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it
13 would be fair to say that in the last ten years some
14 attention has not been paid to the need for digital
15 deployment and sometimes attempts to regulate as though
16 it was actually occurring.
17 9695 MS de WILDE: In fact, the capital
18 expenditure provision that the Commission put into
19 place in the early 1990s was an inspired decision to do
20 precisely that. Unfortunately, technology did not
21 happen as fast as people would have hoped.
22 9696 When I say that we are prepared to
23 spend an additional 2 percent, it is because we see the
24 advantages of it. We need all of the support we can to
25 nudge the system along.
StenoTran
2086
1 9697 THE CHAIRPERSON: Nudge rather than
2 kick?
3 9698 MS de WILDE: I think that depends on
4 where you are sitting.
5 9699 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Radio-Canada. I am
6 not as kind as my fellow commissioners. Vous êtes bien
7 entouré, Monsieur Bureau, et vous avez soulevé la
8 question de Radio-Canada, alors vous ne vous en
9 sauverez pas si facilement.
10 9700 Ce matin, et dans votre soumission
11 écrite, mais ce matin, à la page 9 on a soulevé que
12 vous avez dit que l'allocation de 50 pour cent allouée
13 aux productions destinées à la Société Radio-Canada
14 doit être revue.
15 9701 Je comprends, selon M. Roy, que la
16 base de cette révision se ferait selon l'argent dépensé
17 dans la production canadienne en considérant les
18 dépenses totales aux dépenses canadiennes, de
19 programmation canadienne?
20 9702 M. ROY: Ça pourrait être une
21 approche, oui, pour refléter...
22 9703 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et ça, c'était votre
23 tiers/deux-tiers?
24 9704 M. ROY: C'est ça.
25 9705 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et vous vous basiez
StenoTran
2087
1 sur le Canada de langue française, sur SRC, ou...
2 9706 M. ROY: Non; l'ensemble du Canada.
3 9707 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mettons à part la
4 question CBC, et examinons la question SRC au Québec.
5 9708 Vos collègues de TVA ont été beaucoup
6 plus précis et beaucoup plus aventuriers à nous donner
7 des suggestions de ce qu'il faut faire pour freiner
8 Radio-Canada. M. Lamarre n'a pas accepté ce mot-là,
9 mais nous avons eu des suggestions. Par exemple, vous
10 dites qu'ils attaquent le marché de la publicité
11 férocement.
12 9709 M. Lamarre se plaignait que la
13 publicité était vendue beaucoup trop basse, mais les
14 programmes étaient achetés sur enchères. Il avait,
15 lui, des suggestions très très précises pour
16 essentiellement couper un peu les ailes de la
17 concurrence de Radio-Canada. Je ne sais pas si vous
18 avez lu leurs suggestions, mais elles étaient très
19 précises.
20 9710 Par exemple, les droits à la
21 programmation ne pouvaient pas être achetés par
22 Radio-Canada à moins que le marché... j'espère que je
23 ne fais pas d'erreur ici, mais que le marché n'ait pas
24 essayé de miser sur l'achat de ces droits, et même que
25 Radio-Canada ne devrait pas faire de programmation si
StenoTran
2088
1 le secteur privé voulait la faire elle-même.
2 9711 Considérant la pénétration du câble
3 au Québec et le fait que dans certains genres
4 d'émissions, dont TQS s'est retiré, il n'y a que deux
5 parties en langue française, conventionnelles, pour
6 ceux qui n'ont pas le câble, est-ce qu'à votre avis le
7 Conseil et les fonds et tous ceux qui s'occupent
8 d'essayer de, justement, allouer les sommes dont vous
9 parlez, devraient prendre en considération que si
10 Radio-Canada ne faisait plus certains genres de
11 programmation, il n'y aurait que TVA qui l'offrirait
12 aux gens sur ondes hertziennes?
13 9712 Les spécialisés, c'est
14 discrétionnaire et, en plus, la pénétration du câble
15 est basse, et ceux qui voudraient peut-être s'abonner
16 aux services SRD n'auront pas les services locaux.
17 Est-ce qu'on devrait mettre dans la soupe une approche
18 différente pour le Canada français à cause de ça?
19 9713 Madame Fortin, elle, dit que c'est
20 inévitable que Radio-Canada et TVA font se faire
21 concurrence.
22 9714 M. BUREAU: Je pense qu'en principe
23 il faut toujours s'assurer que les règles qui sont
24 envisagées soient adaptées aux deux marchés, et il peut
25 bien y avoir des règles différentes pour le marché
StenoTran
2089
1 francophone par rapport au marché anglophone.
2 9715 Ceci étant dit, la raison, je pense,
3 pour laquelle TQS -- on parle seulement de ceux qui
4 peuvent rejoindre tout le monde par diffusion
5 hertzienne. La raison pour laquelle TQS s'est retirée
6 est qu'ils n'étaient pas capables de concurrencer
7 Radio-Canada eux non plus. Ils ont essayé d'en faire,
8 des émissions, comme celles que Radio-Canada faisait
9 dans le sport, dans d'autres catégories comme ça, des
10 séries et tout ça. Ils se sont retirés simplement
11 parce qu'ils n'étaient pas capables de supporter, si
12 vous voulez, la concurrence par rapport à Radio-Canada.
13 Ils entraient dans une ligue qui était beaucoup trop
14 élevée et trop riche pour eux. Si Radio-Canada n'était
15 pas là...
16 9716 S'il y avait un droit de premier
17 refus, si je comprends bien, une des suggestions...
18 s'il y avait un droit de premier refus sur certaines
19 catégories d'émissions en faveur de la télévision
20 conventionnelle et que la télévision conventionnelle
21 disait non, je ne le prends pas, pour n'importe quelle
22 raison, je pense bien qu'à ce moment-là, dans le but de
23 s'assurer que ceux qui ne sont pas abonnés au câble ou
24 qui ne sont pas abonnés à la télé en direct aient accès
25 à ce genre de programmation, Radio-Canada pourrait y
StenoTran
2090
1 venir.
2 9717 Ce n'est peut-être pas une mauvaise
3 idée que d'essayer cette formule-là mais, vous savez,
4 avec la télé en direct, qui entre de façon assez
5 significative maintenant dans le marché francophone et
6 qui, au niveau du marché francophone est aussi
7 populaire que tout le reste du Canada anglais en termes
8 de nombre d'abonnés à la télé en direct, on va voir à
9 un moment donné que la pénétration limitée du câble, à
10 laquelle on a été habitué au Québec pendant un certain
11 nombre d'années, va probablement être complétée par une
12 pénétration des services de télé en direct, ou
13 peut-être par le nouveau service MMDS, dépendant de la
14 façon dont la mise en marché va être faite.
15 9718 Donc, ces choses-là vont venir
16 changer peut-être les données de base, les statistiques
17 de base dont on se sert pour dire qu'il reste une
18 grande partie de la population qui n'est pas servie.
19 9719 Même dans le cas où ça ne changerait
20 pas, il y a quand même deux autres joueurs. Il y a TVA
21 et TQS qui sont là, et ces deux autres joueurs-là, les
22 deux ont manifesté de l'intérêt pour le genre de
23 programmes que la société d'État achète, à ce qu'ils
24 considèrent, eux, un prix trop élevé, et je pense que
25 ce serait peut-être dans l'intérêt de tout le monde
StenoTran
2091
1 s'il y avait cette espèce de formule de droit de
2 premier refus. Je ne sais pas qui serait l'arbitre
3 là-dedans, mais...
4 9720 LA PRÉSIDENTE: C'était une de leurs
5 suggestions, mais ils en avaient plusieurs très
6 précises dans ce genre-là. Mais vous, vous ne voyez
7 pas le résultat de ce qui se passe en ce moment au
8 Québec avec SRC plutôt qu'au Canada anglais avec le
9 CBC... vous ne voyez pas que c'est aussi un problème
10 qui est inhérent au Québec à cause de la petitesse du
11 marché, et qui devrait être considéré différemment?
12 9721 M. BUREAU: On dit toujours ça, et
13 c'est vrai. Alors, il faut toujours le considérer un
14 peu différemment. Ça ne veut pas dire que c'est
15 totalement différent. Il y a des nuances à apporter
16 là-dedans et on aura, j'espère, l'occasion d'en
17 discuter.
18 9722 Peut-être que M. Roy a quelque chose
19 à ajouter sur ce sujet-là en particulier.
20 9723 M. ROY: On a vu plus souvent la
21 Société Radio-Canada aller vers des formules offertes
22 par les diffuseurs conventionnels privés que l'inverse.
23 Donc, au lieu de développer ses propres formules et
24 donner une offre alternative en tant que société
25 publique, on est allé directement sur le terrain des
StenoTran
2092
1 joueurs privés, et dans ce cas-là c'est vraiment la SRC
2 qui vient priver le public d'une sorte de programmation
3 que peut-être les privées n'avaient pas offerte jusqu'à
4 maintenant.
5 9724 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je ne suis pas
6 certaine que j'ai bien compris votre position vis-à-vis
7 la production indépendante. Moi, j'ai la version
8 anglaise de votre soumission écrite devant moi, et à la
9 page 24 vous dites:
10 "...only independent production
11 companies should be given access
12 to Telefilm funds and to
13 assistance programs for Canadian
14 film and television productions,
15 for several reasons:"
16 9725 Which you outline.
17 9726 Did I hear you respond to
18 Commissioner Wilson that, with some safeguards, it
19 would possibly be acceptable?
20 9727 MS de WILDE: That is correct. In
21 fact, that position has evolved.
22 9728 THE CHAIRPERSON: And on page 8 -- en
23 français, vous dites:
24 "Tous les radiodiffuseurs
25 conventionnels devraient
StenoTran
2093
1 consacrer un pourcentage de
2 leurs dépenses de programmation
3 à des émissions produites par
4 des entreprises non affiliées."
5 9729 Vous envisagez ici un pourcentage de
6 leurs dépenses de programmation qui irait, à ce
7 moment-là, à des compagnies indépendantes pour la
8 production d'émissions.
9 9730 Avez-vous envisagé un pourcentage
10 quelconque?
11 9731 Mme de WILDE: Non. On pense que
12 l'approche devrait être plutôt ad hoc.
13 9732 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et ça, ce serait
14 seulement pour les radiodiffuseurs conventionnels, et
15 les services spécialisés...
16 9733 Mme de WILDE: On le fait déjà.
17 9734 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Est-ce que la
18 position ad hoc que le Conseil utilise maintenant est
19 satisfaisante dans le futur?
20 9735 Mme de WILDE: C'est exact. Oui.
21 9736 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et on la
22 transporterait, à ce moment-là, au service
23 conventionnel.
24 9737 Mme de WILDE: Oui.
25 9738 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Maintenant,
StenoTran
2094
1 CINAR/Nelvana nous a proposé une suggestion que j'ai,
2 moi, un peu de mal à comprendre, mais Mme Charest m'a
3 aidée un peu à la comprendre. J'aimerais savoir ce que
4 vous en pensez.
5 9739 Ils soutiennent, eux, que
6 l'investissement en capital par les diffuseurs de la
7 façon suivante est reconnue ou prévaut dans le marché,
8 et que, eux, ils devraient la transformer en règle.
9 Leur position serait la suivante: Que les diffuseurs
10 puissent obtenir une part de propriété dans une
11 production qui équivaut à 50 pour cent de la valeur de
12 leur investissement, en sus des droits de diffusion ou
13 de la licence qu'ils ont donnée, une fois qu'ils ont
14 recouvert entièrement leur investissement.
15 9740 Je comprends à ce moment-là qu'ils
16 pourraient être propriétaires à un niveau qui
17 équivaudrait à 50 pour cent de la valeur de leur
18 investissement en capital, au-delà ou en sus des droits
19 de diffusion ou la licence qu'ils ont donnée.
20 9741 M. BUREAU: Sur un budget de
21 production de 2 millions, si un diffuseur payait en
22 droits... investissait...
23 9742 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui. En capital, en
24 sus du droit de licence ou de droits de diffusion,
25 qu'il donnait, disons, 25 pour cent ou 20 pour cent,
StenoTran
2095
1 mais en sus, une somme quelconque.
2 9743 M. BUREAU: À ce moment-là...
3 9744 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Qu'il pourrait
4 aboutir avec la propriété dans la production à un
5 niveau à 50 pour cent la valeur de cet investissement.
6 9745 M. BUREAU: Après remboursement,
7 avez-vous dit?
8 9746 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Une fois qu'ils ont
9 recouvert entièrement leur investissement. Ce n'est
10 pas une formule qui vous est familière.
11 9747 J'imagine que leur proposition vise à
12 encourager l'investissement des diffuseurs dans les
13 productions, sans qu'ils aient le contrôle de la
14 propriété.
15 9748 M. BUREAU: On aura certainement
16 l'occasion d'examiner la transcription...
17 9749 LA PRÉSIDENTE: C'est dans la
18 proposition de CINAR/Nelvana.
19 9750 M. BUREAU: ... et de faire des
20 commentaires au moment des commentaires écrits, Madame
21 Wylie.
22 9751 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui, parce que la
23 position de M. Hirsh et Mme Charest était que c'est
24 assez commun dans l'industrie et qu'eux voudraient,
25 comme incitatif à l'investissement en capital, que ce
StenoTran
2096
1 soit reconnu comme une règle.
2 9752 Je vous donnerai la page exacte...
3 vous l'avez?
4 9753 M. BUREAU: On l'a déjà, la page.
5 C'est l'échange que vous avez eu avec Mme Charest qu'on
6 va avoir dans la transcription.
7 9754 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui, qui peut-être
8 aiderait, parce que c'était... Je suis charmée de voir
9 que vous non plus ne comprenez pas d'emblée.
10 9755 M. BUREAU: Mais, venant de
11 Mme Charest, ça a l'air trop beau pour être vrai.
12 9756 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Vous avez discuté
13 avec plus d'un de mes collègues de cette idée d'avoir
14 un groupe de travail qui examinerait les questions de
15 distribution et de déploiement de numérisation.
16 9757 Évidemment, quand vous avez écrit
17 votre soumission, vous ne saviez pas que le Conseil
18 allait, justement, ouvrir un processus quelconque pour
19 examiner les questions qui entourent la distribution.
20 Est-ce que vous envisageriez ce groupe de travail comme
21 faisant partie de cet exercice-là, dont maintenant vous
22 avez connaissance du fait que le Conseil se propose
23 d'avoir un processus quelconque?
24 9758 Est-ce que vous considérez que ça
25 fait partie intégrante des questions que nous allons
StenoTran
2097
1 soulever dans cet examen structurel?
2 9759 Mme de WILDE: Non, pas vraiment.
3 J'ai pensé vraiment que ce serait plutôt un groupe de
4 travail, et pas un processus avec...
5 9760 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Non, mais est-ce que
6 ce groupe de travail là, ce ne serait pas normal qu'il
7 fasse partie de cet examen? Est-ce que ce n'est pas
8 une des questions...
9 9761 Mme de WILDE: Moi, je ne sais pas
10 exactement ce serait quoi les questions que le Conseil
11 va poser dans l'intérêt de cet exercice.
12 9762 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais vous avez vu
13 l'avis public du Conseil?
14 9763 Mme de WILDE: Oui. On avait en tête
15 plutôt les groupes de travail que le Conseil a menés
16 dans le cadre des télécommunications, où les questions
17 étaient plutôt techniques.
18 9764 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Comme le processus
19 CISC...
20 9765 Mme de WILDE: Oui. La partie 6?
21 Est-ce que c'est ce que...
22 9766 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Non. Le processus
23 CISC, C-I-S-C. Ça ne me vient pas en français en ce
24 moment.
25 9767 Mme de WILDE: C'est plutôt le
StenoTran
2098
1 processus qui a touché le "number portability". C'est
2 celui-là qui m'a frappée le plus.
3 9768 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui. Le processus
4 CISC, c'est CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee.
5 9769 Mme de WILDE: C'est exactement ça.
6 9770 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Dans l'industrie, où
7 le Conseil... ça pourrait se produire en même temps,
8 mais pas nécessairement intégré à l'examen de la
9 structure.
10 9771 Mme de WILDE: C'est ça.
11 9772 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Maintenant, une
12 petite question sur la promotion.
13 9773 Vous suggérez qu'il y ait plus de
14 ressources dédiées ou dévouées à la promotion. Est-ce
15 que vous vous êtes penchés sur les suggestions qui ont
16 été faites que ça fasse partie des dépenses
17 canadiennes, à la programmation canadienne, ou si c'est
18 simplement un objectif que vous voulez... qu'il y ait
19 des incitatifs très clairs pour encourager la
20 promotion, que cet incitatif-là soit même financier?
21 9774 M. BUREAU: Je pense que notre
22 position serait que les coûts de promotion qui sont à
23 l'extérieur du service qui soit utilisé...
24 9775 LA PRÉSIDENTE: À des tierces
25 parties.
StenoTran
2099
1 9776 M. BUREAU: À des tierces parties, ne
2 fassent pas partie de ce calcul-là dont vous parlez, à
3 moins...
4 9777 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui, qui est
5 contraire à certaines propositions.
6 9778 M. BUREAU: Oui. C'est pour ça qu'on
7 le spécifie.
8 9779 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et vous, vous pensez
9 simplement que c'est le rôle des radiodiffuseurs de
10 faire la promotion de la programmation, et que les
11 incitatifs devraient être les impératifs du marché,
12 mais pas des incitatifs financiers, parce qu'il y a eu
13 beaucoup de propositions, que le Conseil devrait revoir
14 la définition de la publicité, inclure la promotion
15 dans les dépenses.
16 9780 MS de WILDE: We think that there are
17 some useful ideas on the table. The one that we are
18 alluding to right now is that it does not seem to make
19 a lot of sense to include what would be marketing
20 expenditures on, for example, billboards as Canadian
21 content expenditures.
22 9781 In contrast, if one were to change
23 the definition for some of the advertising to permit
24 the promotion of Canadian services by other Canadian
25 services, that would be a compelling way to enhance the
StenoTran
2100
1 promotion of Canadian.
2 9782 If we were to find additional ways to
3 use the cross-channel avails, if we were to change the
4 treatment of the entertainment type of shows to put
5 them into a special category, those are powerful tools
6 that can start to create, especially in the English
7 language market, as Pierre always insists on
8 underlining, those are the types of tools that we need
9 to develop in English Canada.
10 9783 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, I am going to
11 transgress Commissioner Wilson's rules and ask you a
12 question.
13 9784 On page 7, your Number 2
14 recommendation or concern, you suggest that:
15 "...the Commission should
16 regulate the wholesale rate for
17 specialty services since these
18 revenues underpin their licence
19 commitments for Canadian
20 programming."
21 9785 You are looking here at regulating
22 the amount of money that flows from cable to
23 specialties?
24 9786 M. BUREAU: Oui, tout à fait.
25 9787 Quand nous déposons une demande de
StenoTran
2101
1 licence, il y a un plan d'affaires qui est joint, et
2 qui est basé sur des revenus, un tarif de gros. De ça
3 découlent les engagements en programmation canadienne.
4 9788 Quand le Conseil prend une décision
5 face aux différentes propositions de la licence qui
6 sont devant lui, nous considérons qu'il accepte, de ce
7 fait, s'il choisit une licence particulière, dans un
8 processus souvent compétitif, qu'il accepte de ce fait
9 la plan d'affaires et les engagements de contenu
10 canadien que ça sous-tendait.
11 9789 Donc, dans la dynamique actuelle que
12 nous rencontrons avec les câblo opérateurs, nous ne
13 voyons pas d'autres moyens que d'en arriver à établir
14 un plancher pour le tarif de gros sur une distribution
15 sur l'étage.
16 9790 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et on a déjà ça
17 évidemment quand c'est une distribution sur le service
18 de base. Alors ce que vous entreverriez c'est le plan
19 d'affaires qui est basé sur le pourcentage de
20 pénétration? C'est assez difficile d'établir un taux
21 sans aussi réglementer le packaging.
22 1255
23 9791 M. BUREAU: Madame Wylie, on a, à
24 plusieurs reprises... et il y a plusieurs requérants
25 qui ont présenté devant le Conseil des demandes et qui
StenoTran
2102
1 avaient une espèce d'échelle de tarifs qui était basée
2 sur la pénétration. À partir de ce moment-là, si le
3 Conseil juge que c'est raisonnable comme demande vu
4 l'ensemble du projet qui est mis devant lui, on devrait
5 s'attendre à ce qu'on ne soit pas forcés de négocier
6 ces choses-là, évidemment à la baisse, quand on arrive
7 avec le distributeur.
8 9792 À partir de ce moment-là, quand le
9 distributeur nous dit: "Non, vous n'aurez pas 40
10 cents, vous allez avoir 20 sous", puis on dit: "On a
11 des engagements qui font qu'on ne peut pas se permettre
12 de faire un service à ce prix-là" et qu'il dit: "Moi,
13 je m'en fous. Moi, je vous donne 20 sous, point, à la
14 ligne", alors nous autres on dit qu'il y a un forum où
15 n'importe qui peut venir pour dire: "On trouve que
16 c'est déraisonnable de demander un service qui va
17 coûter ce prix-là éventuellement." Ça peut être un des
18 éléments qui va être débattu à ce moment-là, comme on
19 va discuter de la programmation, comme on va discuter
20 de l'expertise de ceux qui font la demande et tout ça.
21 9793 Le Conseil a déjà eu à choisir, à la
22 dernière ronde de services spécialisés, entre des
23 demandes concurrentielles où il y avait un différentiel
24 au niveau du prix qui était considérable, entre deux
25 demandes en particulier dont je me souviens très bien,
StenoTran
2103
1 et le Conseil en a choisi une; il a en fait choisi
2 celle dont le prix était le plus élevé.
3 9794 Je suis sûr que le Conseil, en
4 prenant cette décision-là, a pris la décision en se
5 disant: "C'est la meilleure demande, c'est la
6 meilleure chance qu'on a d'avoir un bon service", et il
7 n'a pas vu dans le différentiel de coût un élément qui
8 fasse que le Conseil se soit dit: "L'autre peut nous
9 offrir la même qualité mais à la moitié du prix. Il y
10 a quelque chose qui ne va pas. On va choisir l'autre."
11 9795 Alors tout ce qu'on dit, c'est que le
12 forum pour déterminer ce genre de choses là, ça devrait
13 être ici, et quand le Conseil a fini de prendre sa
14 décision sur les demandes que le Conseil entend, il
15 devrait dire: "Voici, on vous donne la licence, et ça
16 implique que le prix de gros va être à tel prix."
17 9796 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will have an
18 opportunity to discuss that with Commissioner Wilson
19 when we do have our process, but it is not a new
20 concept, it is just that the Commission hasn't retained
21 it as a requirement.
22 9797 MR. BUREAU: We have not yet
23 suggested that cable rates should be regulated on a
24 tier.
25 9798 THE CHAIRPERSON: Not yet.
StenoTran
2104
1 9799 MR. BUREAU: What did I say? My
2 English is very poor.
3 9800 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
4 9801 Counsel.
5 9802 Me BLAIS: Je ne veux pas vous
6 retenir trop, trop de votre déjeuner, mais j'ai deux
7 petites questions à vous poser, et c'est vraiment pour
8 réagir à des propositions mises de l'avant par d'autres
9 parties.
10 9803 Premièrement, l'ACR propose, à
11 l'annexe 1, à la page 6, une proposition... j'ai le
12 texte ici en anglais, si vous ne l'avez pas devant
13 vous.
14 "However, the CAB has proposed
15 two incentives that will ensure
16 the greater presence and
17 promotion of theatrical feature
18 films"
19 et le deuxième, c'est:
20 "an exclusion of any promotion
21 of Canadian feature films from
22 the definition of advertising
23 content irrespective of whether
24 the broadcaster carries it." (As
25 read)
StenoTran
2105
1 9804 Je me demandais si vous aviez des
2 commentaires à faire sur cette proposition-là.
3 9805 MS de WILDE: We think that both of
4 those are very good ideas.
5 9806 MR. BLAIS: You know, I didn't
6 mention the 200 per cent credit. I was asking more for
7 your reaction on the second, but I take note that you
8 also agree with the first proposal.
9 9807 Monsieur Bureau, je sais que vous
10 aviez été impliqué, je pense que c'était à la fin des
11 années quatre-vingt, suite à la directive en Europe sur
12 la télévision sans frontières et les quotas en Europe
13 relativement aux coproductions officielles, et je
14 voulais savoir si vous aviez une réaction à la
15 proposition de l'APFTQ à l'effet qu'il y a un crédit de
16 150 pour cent pour les coproductions majoritairement
17 canadiennes, les coproductions officielles, évidemment.
18 9808 Je me demandais qu'en est-il de la
19 notion du retour d'ascenseur entre les coproductions
20 majoritaires et les coproductions minoritaires? Est-ce
21 que ça pourrait débalancer le système de coproduction?
22 9809 M. BUREAU: C'est très complexe.
23 Toute cette discussion-là avec nos partenaires
24 étrangers est extrêmement complexe. Il y a toutes
25 sortes de choses qui entrent en ligne de compte, y
StenoTran
2106
1 inclus la politique.
2 9810 Je pense qu'il y a certainement
3 avantage à encourager les coproductions dans lesquelles
4 on va être majoritaires, et ça peut prendre la forme
5 qui est suggérée par l'APFTQ, mais je n'irai pas
6 au-delà de ça dans mes commentaires parce que
7 justement, à l'heure actuelle, il y a toutes sortes
8 de... peut-être pas de problèmes, mais certainement de
9 questions qui sont soulevées au niveau de l'application
10 des traités à l'heure actuelle relativement à la
11 portion minoritaire ou la portion majoritaire de la
12 coproduction, et ça fait l'objet de débat par des gens
13 qui sont bien mieux qualifiés que moi à l'heure
14 actuelle.
15 9811 Me BLAIS: Néanmoins, certains ont
16 proposé que les traités de coproduction se trouvent
17 être un engin pour aider l'exportation de produits
18 canadiens, et je vous inviterais alors, dans les
19 commentaires du mois de novembre, si vous pouviez
20 peut-être nous aider dans ce sens en matière de
21 coproduction officielle.
22 9812 M. BUREAU: On va certainement
23 essayer.
24 9813 Vous avez parlé de novembre?
25 9814 Me BLAIS: Oui. C'est ça, au mois de
StenoTran
2107
1 novembre.
2 9815 M. BUREAU: Oui.
3 9816 Me BLAIS: Merci bien.
4 9817 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous vous remercions,
5 mesdames, messieurs.
6 9818 Nous allons maintenant prendre une
7 pause pour le déjeuner et nous reprendrons à 2 h 00.
8 We will be back at 2:00.
9 --- Recess at / Suspension à 1300
10 --- Reprise à / Upon resuming at 1402
11 9819 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Bienvenue et bonjour.
12 9820 Avant de débuter, je voudrais avertir
13 tout le monde que ce soir nous allons ajourner à 6 h 00
14 ou à peu près, dépendant de comment les choses se
15 déroulent. C'est un peu difficile en ce moment de
16 déterminer exactement combien de parties nous pourrons
17 entendre; nous aurons une meilleure idée peut-être à la
18 pause.
19 9821 We will be adjourning at 6:00 or
20 approximately 6:00 tonight; depending on where we are
21 at, it might be slightly before. It is difficult to
22 say how many parties we will be hearing, but we should
23 have a better idea by the break.
24 9822 Madam Secretary.
25 9823 Mme BÉNARD: Merci, Madame la
StenoTran
2108
1 Présidente.
2 9824 La prochaine présentation sera faite
3 par Le Groupe Coscient iInc. J'inviterais M. Crevier à
4 nous présenter ses collègues.
5 9825 M. CREVIER: Merci.
6 PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION
7 9826 M. CREVIER: Madame la
8 Vice-Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les Conseillers,
9 mon nom est Guy Crevier. Je suis accompagné
10 aujourd'hui de M. Laurent Gaudreau, qui est à ma
11 droite, qui est vice-président du conseil et fondateur
12 de Coscient; à sa droite, Mme Marie-Christine Dufour,
13 vice-présidente, Affaires publiques, et M. Michel
14 Houle, consultant.
15 9827 C'est la première fois, Madame la
16 Vice-Présidente, que j'ai le plaisir de me présenter
17 devant le Conseil en tant que chef de la direction du
18 Groupe Coscient, qui est, comme vous le savez, le plus
19 important producteur indépendant de films et
20 d'émissions de télévision au Québec et le second en
21 importance au Canada. Je me fais un plaisir ici de
22 vous signaler qu'au grand gala francophone de la
23 télévision, dimanche dernier, Le Groupe Coscient a
24 amassé un record de 18 Gémeaux.
25 9828 Au cours des 20 dernières années j'ai
StenoTran
2109
1 oeuvré dans les domaines de la diffusion, de la
2 production, de la distribution et des nouveaux médias.
3 L'exercice de ma profession m'a amené à entrer en
4 contact avec une foule d'intervenants à travers le
5 monde. À chaque reprise, j'ai constaté combien le
6 système canadien de radiodiffusion fait l'envie des
7 observateurs étrangers. C'est un success story
8 d'autant plus remarquable que la dualité linguistique
9 nous a obligés, en pratique, à construire deux systèmes
10 de radiodiffusion canadiens, l'un de langue anglaise et
11 l'autre de langue française. C'est un success story
12 d'autant plus unique que nous avons dû le créer et le
13 développer à proximité du géant américain, c'est-à-dire
14 de la plus puissante industrie culturelle à l'échelle
15 planétaire.
16 9829 La force du système de radiodiffusion
17 de langue française réside dans la popularité
18 exceptionnelle de ses émissions sur le marché
19 domestique. Année après année, 90 pour cent des
20 émissions les plus populaires à la télévision de langue
21 française sont canadiennes. Et, en dépit de l'ajout
22 d'un très grand nombre de services de programmation de
23 langue anglaise, canadiens et américains, les
24 francophones du Québec regardent la télévision de
25 langue française dans une proportion plus grande
StenoTran
2110
1 aujourd'hui qu'il y a 15 ans.
2 9830 Les émissions canadiennes de langue
3 anglaise, pour leur part, connaissent des succès
4 exceptionnels sur les marchés étrangers au point que le
5 Canada est devenu un des plus importants exportateurs
6 d'émissions de télévision après les États-Unis.
7 9831 Je suis convaincu que ces deux
8 systèmes peuvent apprendre beaucoup l'un de l'autre et
9 se prêter mutuellement assistance.
10 9832 Les producteurs et les diffuseurs
11 d'émissions canadiennes de langue française doivent
12 apprendre à exporter davantage leurs produits, de façon
13 à pouvoir en faciliter le financement, à les rendre
14 plus attrayants, plus compétitifs et plus profitables.
15 9833 Malheureusement, au Canada anglais,
16 l'objectif partagé par tous de rejoindre un plus grand
17 auditoire avec le contenu canadien n'a pas encore été
18 atteint.
19 9834 J'ai fait allusion au début de ma
20 présentation à la qualité et à la pertinence du système
21 canadien. Il faut toutefois admettre qu'il s'agit d'un
22 système qui exige de la part des contribuables
23 canadiens un effort considérable. Je pourrais citer à
24 titre d'exemple le coût de la télévision publique, les
25 crédits d'impôts, les fonds de financement des
StenoTran
2111
1 produits.
2 9835 Pour que cet effort des contribuables
3 soit efficace et justifié, il faut que les entreprises
4 de diffusion canadiennes participent également à cet
5 effet. En particulier, il faut que les diffuseurs
6 conventionnels de langue anglaise, comme le font déjà
7 les diffuseurs conventionnels privés de langue
8 française et les télévisions spécialisées des deux
9 langues, consacrent une plus grande part de leurs
10 revenus et de leurs dépenses de programmation et de
11 promotion aux émissions canadiennes pour que celles-ci
12 deviennent plus populaires, plus compétitives sur le
13 marché domestique comme sur le marché international et
14 réussissent à rejoindre une plus grande part de
15 l'auditoire.
16 9836 Il faut savoir miser sur nos forces
17 respectives mais aussi tirer des leçons de l'expérience
18 de l'autre, pour corriger nos faiblesses. Si nous
19 réussissons à relever ce défi, la réussite du système
20 canadien sera encore plus éclatante.
21 9837 M. GAUDREAU: On peut dire que le
22 contenu canadien est vraiment la pierre angulaire de
23 notre système de radiodiffusion. C'est ce qui fait
24 qu'il est unique. C'est ce qui fait qu'il n'est pas
25 une simple extension du système américain. C'est ce
StenoTran
2112
1 qui fait qu'il contribue à l'affirmation de notre
2 identité culturelle. Il n'y a donc aucun doute dans
3 mon esprit qu'il faut favoriser une haute teneur de
4 contenu canadien.
5 9838 Mais la quantité n'est pas le seul
6 facteur qui compte. Dans un environnement de plus en
7 plus concurrentiel, il faut aussi favoriser la qualité
8 et la compétitivité des émissions canadiennes, leur
9 capacité de séduire les auditoires d'ici et d'ailleurs,
10 car c'est ainsi qu'on pourra accroître leur
11 rentabilité, stimuler leur exportation et contribuer à
12 résoudre le problème de leur financement.
13 9839 Le défi que nous avons collectivement
14 à relever est vraiment de produire de plus en plus
15 d'émissions qui ne s'adressent pas uniquement aux
16 auditoires domestiques mais qui peuvent aussi rayonner
17 à travers le monde.
18 9840 C'est d'ailleurs dans cette direction
19 qu'entend résolument s'orienter Le Groupe Coscient, qui
20 n'en est pas à ses premières armes, d'ailleurs,
21 puisqu'il a déjà réussi à exporter un magazine
22 scientifique comme Omni Science dans 117 pays et à
23 faire des percées intéressantes avec des séries
24 dramatiques comme "Scoop" et "Omertà" ainsi que des
25 séries d'animation comme "Bob Morane".
StenoTran
2113
1 9841 Du côté de la télévision de langue
2 anglaise, le défi se situe vraiment du côté domestique.
3 Il faut assurer une présence plus régulière des séries
4 dramatiques et pour enfants canadiennes; là aussi, le
5 défi fondamental est de rendre ces émissions plus
6 rentables pour les producteurs et les diffuseurs
7 canadiens, en faisant en sorte qu'elles soient plus
8 attrayantes pour les auditoires d'ici, mieux placées
9 dans les grilles horaires, promues avec plus de moyens
10 et d'intensité.
11 9842 Le nouvel environnement réglementaire
12 devrait donc avoir pour objectifs de favoriser à la
13 fois la disponibilité, la qualité, la compétitivité et
14 la rentabilité des émissions canadiennes. Il doit
15 reposer sur une vision industrielle globale, sans pour
16 autant négliger, bien sûr, les objectifs sociaux et
17 culturels de la loi. Cet environnement réglementaire
18 doit aussi avoir la souplesse nécessaire pour
19 permettre, voire encourager le risque, pour récompenser
20 le succès et pour relever le défi international de
21 l'exportation.
22 9843 M. CREVIER: La réussite du système
23 de radiodiffusion canadien repose en grande partie sur
24 le modèle assez unique que nous avons développé, un
25 modèle qui permet aux différents partenaires du
StenoTran
2114
1 système -- producteurs/distributeurs indépendants,
2 télédiffuseurs conventionnels et services
3 spécialisés -- d'apporter une valeur ajoutée aux
4 produits.
5 9844 Nous croyons que cette structure à
6 trois piliers a contribué à créer un système de
7 radiodiffusion dynamique, compétitif et innovateur, et
8 que le Conseil devrait avoir à coeur d'assurer la
9 pérennité de ce modèle industriel, qui permet à toutes
10 les composantes du système de se développer, de
11 disposer d'un espace de croissance et d'ajouter de la
12 valeur.
13 9845 Nous ne sommes pas opposés à la
14 création de groupes intégrés, au développement
15 d'alliances stratégiques et de partenariats entre ces
16 trois composantes. Au contraire, nous avons suggéré
17 dans notre mémoire diverses mesures qui favoriseraient
18 l'établissement de tels partenariats, car nous croyons
19 qu'ils sont nécessaires pour renforcer le système
20 canadien de radiodiffusion et pour relever le défi de
21 la compétition sur la scène internationale. La
22 relation qui s'est développée entre Télé-Système et Le
23 Groupe Coscient en est d'ailleurs un bel exemple.
24 9846 Ce que nous disons, c'est que des
25 balises doivent encadrer ce processus pour éviter
StenoTran
2115
1 d'accorder à l'un de ces trois piliers une position de
2 dominance telle que la dynamique globale, la
3 productivité et la compétitivité du système en soient
4 négativement affectées. C'est pourquoi nous suggérons
5 au Conseil d'adopter une politique d'accès des
6 producteurs indépendants au système de la
7 radiodiffusion canadienne qui assure qu'une fenêtre
8 leur soit toujours ouverte, comme la Loi sur la
9 radiodiffusion l'exige.
10 9847 À cet égard, le moyen qui nous
11 semblerait le plus approprié est d'assujettir tous les
12 télédiffuseurs à l'obligation de consacrer un
13 pourcentage de leurs dépenses de programmation
14 canadienne à l'acquisition d'émissions produites par
15 des entreprises non affiliées.
16 9848 En résumé, nous croyons que le
17 contenu canadien est la pierre angulaire du système
18 actuel. C'est en réalisant des émissions canadiennes
19 plus rentables, de meilleure qualité et plus
20 compétitives sur la scène nationale et internationale
21 qu'on créera de la richesse et qu'on consolidera le
22 système de la radiodiffusion canadienne.
23 9849 Nous croyons également que la force
24 du système repose sur ses trois composantes: les
25 producteurs/distributeurs indépendants, les
StenoTran
2116
1 télédiffuseurs conventionnels, la télévision
2 spécialisée et payante, et que l'encadrement
3 réglementaire doit assurer à chacune un espace de
4 créativité et de croissance, tout en encourageant le
5 développement de partenariats et d'alliances
6 stratégiques entre elles.
7 9850 Enfin, nous croyons que le Conseil
8 doit privilégier une vision industrielle globale qui
9 permette au système de la radiodiffusion canadienne de
10 relever le défi de la mondialisation, d'exporter son
11 expertise et ses produits sur les marchés
12 internationaux.
13 9851 Madame la Vice-Présidente, Madame et
14 Messieurs les Conseillers, je vous remercie de votre
15 attention.
16 9852 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci,
17 Monsieur Crevier et Monsieur Gaudreau.
18 9853 Votre soumission ou votre bref écrit
19 est assez complet et intéressant. Je vais poser des
20 questions assez spécifiques sur vos soumissions. Donc
21 nous vous félicitons de l'apport à notre processus, qui
22 semble avoir été bien pensé et vous semblez y avoir mis
23 beaucoup de travail.
24 9854 Il y a quatre secteurs où j'ai des
25 questions. Je voudrais poser des question sur vos
StenoTran
2117
1 propos sur la concentration, sur l'intégration
2 verticale et l'accès aux fonds par les télédiffuseurs
3 et sur la question de ce que vous proposez comme
4 dépenses à la programmation canadienne, comme exigences
5 pour les télévisions, et vos propos sur Radio-Canada.
6 Pauvre Radio-Canada, on en a parlé beaucoup ce matin et
7 avant-hier aussi.
8 9855 Maintenant, au niveau de la
9 concentration, vous proposez à votre recommandation 9
10 qu'on s'assure que les entreprises privées soient
11 fortes et se développent dans le secteur de la
12 télévision conventionnelle et dans le secteur de la
13 télévision spécialisée et payante, mais que ces deux
14 secteurs demeurent relativement autonomes et en
15 concurrence entre eux, surtout au Canada français.
16 9856 Comment réconcilier ces deux
17 objectifs, de s'assurer que nous ayons des entreprises
18 fortes, incluant des entreprises conventionnelles, mais
19 de garder les secteurs, si je comprends bien, de la
20 télévision conventionnelle et de la télévision
21 spécialisée et payante comme étant autonomes et
22 concurrentiels.
23 9857 Alors comment va-t-on encourager des
24 entreprises fortes qui peuvent se développer et
25 participer davantage dan la programmation sans accepter
StenoTran
2118
1 qu'il y aura cette intégration que moi, je considère
2 comme horizontale, dans l'étroitesse du marché
3 francophone?
4 9858 M. CREVIER: Dans le fond, je
5 pourrais vous répondre en plusieurs volets, mais ce qui
6 me frappe beaucoup, moi, c'est qu'on fait face, comme
7 tout le monde, à une globalisation, et je ne crois pas
8 que la concentration soit nécessairement une mesure de
9 développement. Je pense qu'on voit souvent la
10 concentration comme une mesure défensive.
11 9859 Je vais vous donner peut-être un peu
12 l'exemple du groupe à qui j'appartiens, Coscient. Je
13 viens de Télé-Système et j'ai encore des racines chez
14 Télé-Système. Télé-Système est une entreprise qui a
15 participé beaucoup à un grand nombre d'alliances
16 stratégiques mais qui n'est pas majoritaire dans aucun
17 de ces investissements.
18 9860 Ce que nous suggérons, c'est qu'on
19 favorise des alliances stratégiques et que ces
20 alliances stratégiques soient multiples mais qu'elles
21 soient stratégiques, qu'elles soient reliées à des
22 possibilités de conquête de marchés, d'exportation,
23 d'exportation de notre savoir-faire, mais non pas à un
24 simple phénomène de concentration où, en bout de ligne,
25 on se retrouve dans un environnement où il n'y a plus
StenoTran
2119
1 de concurrence. Absence de concurrence, pour moi, ça
2 veut dire également absence au niveau de la qualité.
3 9861 Il faut peut-être se rappeler et
4 retourne un petit peu en arrière et retourner aux
5 années soixante-dix; je suis convaincu que dans tous
6 les différents mémoires qui ont été déposés à ce
7 moment-là auprès des organismes réglementaires et des
8 différentes commissions qui ont eu lieu au début des
9 années soixante-dix... on doit se rappeler qu'au
10 Canada, dans le début des années soixante-dix, il y
11 avait très peu de joueurs et qu'on a créé un système et
12 on a favorisé un système dans lequel il y avait
13 effectivement plusieurs niveaux de joueurs, des
14 producteurs, des diffuseurs et des distributeurs, de
15 façon à enrichir l'offre et les produits, et je crois
16 qu'on a bien atteint ça.
17 9862 Ce serait dommage maintenant que,
18 face à un marché qui est un marché global, notre
19 premier réflexe soit de permettre une concentration qui
20 n'est axée que sur des mesures défensives.
21 9863 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors est-ce que vous
22 entrevoyez comme étant une intégration horizontale ou
23 une concentration des investissements minoritaires
24 entre les télévisions conventionnelles et les
25 spécialisées? Votre proposition, à la page 30 ou 31,
StenoTran
2120
1 la recommandation 9, on parle de favoriser le
2 développement de réseaux ou de groupes de propriétés de
3 télévisions conventionnelles privées forts, mais un
4 système qui découragerait -- à la page 31, juste avant
5 le paragraphe 89 -- une trop grande intégration
6 télévision conventionnelle/télévision spécialisée.
7 9864 Évidemment, comme producteur, je ne
8 pense pas que vous soyez charmé de l'idée d'intégration
9 verticale entre les producteurs et les télédiffuseurs
10 non plus.
11 9865 Donc, au Canada français en
12 particulier, dans un marché étroit, si on ne permet pas
13 cette concentration ou cette intégration horizontale et
14 verticale, comment peut-on favoriser un système de
15 télévision ou une industrie de la télévision plus
16 forte?
17 9866 M. GAUDREAU: Vous avez raison.
18 Évidemment, le système dans lequel on évolue au Québec,
19 c'est un système où la notion de complémentarité est
20 bien structurée, bien organisée, et évidemment les
21 joueurs veulent de plus en plus se donner de la
22 dimension et travailler en association avec les autres.
23 Mais je pense que les prises de participation
24 minoritaires ne constituent pas des intégrations.
25 C'est la même chose que, dans certains cas, les
StenoTran
2121
1 diffuseurs peuvent devenir des investisseurs dans le
2 produit.
3 9867 Cette relation d'affaires là peut
4 s'établir à plusieurs niveaux sans pour autant que ce
5 soit vraiment des propriétés à part entière structurées
6 à travers un diffuseur conventionnel, diffuseur
7 spécialisé et producteur.
8 9868 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Qu'est-ce que vous
9 considérez comme une position minoritaire ou un
10 investissement minoritaire acceptable, pour ne pas
11 léser votre proposition de ne pas encourager une
12 intégration trop poussée? Un des problèmes, à votre
13 avis, serait que le contenu canadien serait recyclé.
14 9869 Mais, avant de répondre à cette
15 deuxième partie, est-ce que vous avez pensé à ce que
16 vous considérez comme un investissement qui ne
17 dépasserait pas la philosophie que vous proposez quand
18 vous dites "minoritaire"?
19 9870 M. CREVIER: Trente-trois pour cent.
20 9871 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Trente-trois pour
21 cent, avec rien d'autre qui donnerait un pouvoir
22 spécial. À ce moment-là, ce ne serait pas pour vous de
23 l'intégration horizontale.
24 9872 M. CREVIER: Exact.
25 9873 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous allons revenir à
StenoTran
2122
1 l'intégration que moi, j'appelle verticale entre
2 producteurs et télédiffuseurs et tout ce qui en
3 découle. Évidemment, on ne parlera pas aujourd'hui
4 d'intégration entre télédiffuseurs et distributeurs, ce
5 sera pour une autre journée.
6 9874 Maintenant, vous avez proposé, à la
7 page 31, au paragraphe 89, que votre recommandation
8 était basée en partie sur le fait que des entreprises
9 intégrées et en position dominante dans le marché
10 recycleraient constamment et auraient un incitatif pour
11 ou une tentation de recycler le même contenu canadien.
12 9875 Est-ce que c'est le seul résultat
13 nocif d'une intégration horizontale trop poussée qui
14 vous porte à faire cette recommandation?
15 9876 M. CREVIER: Non, je ne crois pas.
16 Je crois que, essentiellement, notre système est basé
17 sur un rapport de force actuellement, un rapport de
18 négociation, le diffuseur, bien entendu, étant celui
19 qui décide de l'acquisition d'un produit mais qui, en
20 décidant de l'acquisition d'un produit, déclenche une
21 série de financements du produit, déclenche une série
22 d'éléments qui favorisent le financement du produit.
23 9877 Je pense qu'il faut être très
24 prudents dans cet environnement-là pour ne pas faire en
25 sorte qu'on ne vienne pas qu'à bâtir un système qui
StenoTran
2123
1 soit axé sur une expression qui est le self-serving, et
2 non pas sur la pertinence, la qualité et la nécessité
3 d'un produit.
4 9878 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors ce serait nocif
5 dans le sens que ça empêche une négociation normale
6 dans le marché de se dérouler, et ça découle un peu
7 aussi sur vos positions vis-à-vis Radio-Canada, je
8 suppose... ou celles qu'on a entendues, mais on peut en
9 reparler plus tard...
10 9879 M. CREVIER: On peut en reparler.
11 9880 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... où il y a une
12 position trop dominante, surtout dans un marché étroit
13 où les pistes sont faussées à cause du pouvoir de
14 négociation d'une partie ou de l'autre.
15 9881 Vous avez aussi relevé, à la page 43,
16 qui est votre recommandation 15, qu'il devrait
17 continuer à y avoir une diversité de propriétaires de
18 stations hertziennes dans un même marché tout en
19 favorisant la consolidation des groupes de propriétés à
20 l'échelle régionale et nationale.
21 9882 Au Canada français en particulier,
22 qu'est-ce que ça voudrait dire de s'assurer que dans
23 chaque marché il y a une diversité de propriétaires de
24 stations hertziennes mais favoriser la consolidation à
25 l'échelle régionale? Comment est-ce que vous
StenoTran
2124
1 entrevoyez le résultat de cette recommandation pour le
2 Canada français?
3 9883 J'ai remarqué que vous avez...
4 quelquefois, c'est un peu difficile à décortiquer.
5 Quelquefois vous vous adressez aux deux marchés,
6 anglophone et francophone, et d'autres fois seulement
7 au francophone. Vous n'avez pas d'objection à ce que
8 moi, je précise dans mes questions, parce que je pense
9 que nous sommes d'accord qu'il y a des circonstances
10 qui sont assez différentes.
11 9884 Vous oeuvrez beaucoup plus dans le
12 marché francophone, ou au Québec.
13 9885 M. CREVIER: Nous avons procédé il y
14 a presque deux ans de ça à l'acquisition d'une
15 compagnie de distribution qui s'appelle Motion, qui
16 nous a ouvert les portes de façon considérable sur les
17 marchés anglophones et les marchés américains. Quand
18 je faisais allusion aux prix Gémeaux tantôt, je peux
19 vous dire qu'on est en nomination également pour deux
20 prix Gemini qu'on produit ou vend pour la presque
21 totalité des réseaux anglophones.
22 9886 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais il ne serait pas
23 injuste de vous considérer comme le producteur majeur
24 au Canada français...
25 9887 M. CREVIER: Absolument.
StenoTran
2125
1 9888 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... dans le passé, et
2 caetera. Ça ne veut pas dire que...
3 9889 M. CREVIER: Vous avez entièrement
4 raison.
5 9890 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... vous n'oeuvrez
6 pas dans les deux domaines.
7 9891 Donc, puisqu'il s'agit ici d'une
8 audience de politique et d'essayer d'avoir de l'aide
9 des gens, vous allez peut-être trouver que, puisque
10 vous êtes là, je vais vous poser des questions sur le
11 marché francophones surtout. Nous avons bien des
12 opportunités du côté anglophone et moins du côté
13 francophone.
14 9892 Alors maintenant, pour revenir à ma
15 question, comment entrevoyez-vous cette
16 recommandation-là en pratique au Québec?
17 9893 M. CREVIER: Si vous me permettez, je
18 vais laisser M. Gaudreau répondre parce que moi, la
19 dernière fois que j'étais assis devant le Conseil,
20 c'était pour favoriser la fusion entre TVA et
21 Quatre-Saisons. Je suis bien embêté avec ce que vous
22 venez de poser.
23 9894 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Même quand on est un
24 homme on peut toujours...
25 9895 M. CREVIER: Changer d'idée.
StenoTran
2126
1 9896 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... changer d'idée.
2 9897 M. CREVIER: Vous êtes bien gentille.
3 Je vais profiter de votre conseil.
4 9898 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Les hommes apprennent
5 des trucs qui fonctionnent dans la vie.
6 9899 Allez-y, Monsieur Gaudreau.
7 9900 M. GAUDREAU: Écoutez, effectivement,
8 quand on s'est présentés ici la dernière fois, c'était
9 vraiment pour défendre le principe de la multiplicité
10 des canaux hertziens au Québec, et je pense
11 qu'aujourd'hui on peut constater effectivement qu'il y
12 avait quand même des acheteurs potentiels pour
13 Télévision Quatre-Saisons et que cette chaîne-là
14 pouvait trouver un avenir au Québec.
15 9901 Fondamentalement, la situation de
16 monopole dans un marché fermé comme le Québec donnerait
17 une situation privilégiée à Télé-Métropole si c'était
18 Télé-Métropole, mais au diffuseur privé, mais je pense
19 qu'effectivement il peut y avoir une extension à
20 travers les régions. Au Québec, il y a quand même des
21 diffuseurs régionaux, et je pense qu'il peut y avoir un
22 lien, un rapprochement qui peut se faire entre certains
23 de ces diffuseurs régionaux -- ça existe déjà du côté
24 de Télévision Quatre-Saisons -- avec certaines stations
25 régionales. Je pense qu'aussi il peut y avoir une
StenoTran
2127
1 extension du côté de certains services spécialisés.
2 9902 M. CREVIER: Je veux juste vous
3 rappeler que nous étions très favorables aussi -- et
4 nous l'avons appuyé et nous sommes prêts toujours à
5 l'appuyer -- au fait que le réseau TVA devienne réseau
6 national. C'est quelque chose de très bien pour le
7 Québec.
8 9903 Je vous dirais que le principal
9 problème au Québec actuellement, que ce soit pour les
10 diffuseurs ou les producteurs et les distributeurs,
11 c'est de sortir de leur marché.
12 9904 LA PRÉSIDENTE: De sortir...
13 9905 M. CREVIER: De sortir du marché
14 domestique, d'exporter le savoir-faire.
15 9906 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et c'est là que vous
16 voyez régional et national, parce que vous
17 reconnaissez, évidemment, que le marché est très
18 étroit.
19 9907 J'allais vous poser des question sur
20 Radio-Canada à la fin, mais je vais vous les poser
21 maintenant, parce qu'à mon avis -- mais je veux savoir
22 ce que vous en pensez -- c'est relié, de fait. Nous
23 avons Radio-Canada qui s'est présentée devant nous et
24 qui a conclu qu'au Québec il n'y a pas grand choix,
25 Radio-Canada va continuer à être en concurrence au
StenoTran
2128
1 niveau de la télévision.
2 9908 Évidemment, ce n'est pas une opinion
3 partagée par les télédiffuseurs québécois
4 nécessairement et, par exemple, je vois que vous aussi,
5 à la page 45, au paragraphe 142, vous dites que le 50
6 pour cent réservé à Radio-Canada au fonds devrait être
7 revu à la baisse pour refléter mieux la réalité.
8 9909 Nous avons entendu différentes
9 suggestions sur quel serait le point de référence pour
10 le baisser. Quel est le vôtre?
11 9910 M. CREVIER: Je vais sortir un peu du
12 cadre de la présentation pour tenter d'y répondre.
13 9911 Moi, je dois dire au départ que j'ai
14 beaucoup de respect pour la Société Radio-Canada et
15 pour la contribution...
16 9912 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais j'en suis sûre.
17 9913 M. CREVIER: ... que Radio-Canada a
18 faite au système.
19 9914 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui, oui.
20 9915 M. CREVIER: Je veux dire, c'est
21 vraiment un système de qualité.
22 9916 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ce sont les problèmes
23 qui sont entrevus maintenant...
24 9917 M. CREVIER: Absolument.
25 9918 LA PRÉSIDENTE: .. que nous voulons
StenoTran
2129
1 discuter.
2 9919 M. CREVIER: Le problème qu'on
3 rencontre avec la société d'État, je pense que c'est
4 une question qui est reliée beaucoup à son financement.
5 La société d'État a dû, dans les dernières années,
6 compter énormément sur ce que j'appelle les revenus
7 publicitaires et a adopté, par le fait même, une
8 orientation qui est davantage commerciale.
9 9920 Dans un contexte où il y a un débat
10 de fond au Canada sur le rôle de la télévision publique
11 et qu'on convient de financer de façon adéquate
12 Radio-Canada, c'est dans ce contexte-là que moi, je
13 voyais que Radio-Canada pourrait éventuellement se voir
14 restreindre son accès à ces fonds-là puisque, d'un
15 autre côté, elle pourrait compter sur un financement
16 plus stable.
17 9921 Maintenant, quel est le pourcentage,
18 quel est le barème, comment le calculer, je pense que
19 ce débat-là n'est pas tellement un débat qui est du
20 ressort de l'entreprise privée mais davantage un débat
21 qui est un débat de population. Quel type de société
22 d'État voulons-nous avoir? Quel est le coût de cette
23 société d'État là? Et est-ce qu'on peut financer
24 directement la société d'État au lieu de passer par une
25 série de programmes et faire en sorte que la société
StenoTran
2130
1 d'État vienne toujours en compétition avec le secteur
2 privé, ce qui est aberrant, à mon point de vue.
3 9922 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors c'est le fait
4 que la société d'État a accès à la publicité et aux
5 fonds et aux allocations parlementaires.
6 9923 M. CREVIER: Le fait également
7 qu'elle se comporte comme un réseau privé.
8 9924 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Comme...?
9 9925 M. CREVIER: Comme un réseau privé.
10 9926 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui.
11 9927 Maintenant, laissez-moi essayer de
12 mettre ensemble les paragraphes qui suggèrent un
13 certain marché. Vous dites au paragraphe 129 que, dans
14 certaines programmations, qui est des catégories que le
15 Conseil essaie d'encourager, les fictions lourdes,
16 qu'il n'y a que deux clients qui achètent des séries
17 dramatiques de fiction lourde parce que TQS et
18 Télé-Québec s'en sont retirées. Donc nous avons deux
19 clients en concurrence dans un domaine assez important
20 pour la programmation canadienne.
21 9928 Vous dites aussi au paragraphe 62,
22 qui est à la page 21, en parlant justement
23 d'allocations parlementaires, que les déboursés du
24 fonds destiné à Radio-Canada sont venus simplement
25 compenser la baisse des allocation parlementaires.
StenoTran
2131
1 Donc nous avons un Radio-Canada qui a accès au fonds,
2 mais ça ne remplace que les allocations parlementaires
3 qu'ils avaient avant. Et vous parlez aussi, à la
4 recommandation 9 dont nous avons parlé plus tôt, de la
5 concurrence.
6 9929 Alors si on essayait d'empêcher
7 Radio-Canada, justement, de concurrencer dans ces
8 certains domaines là, qu'est-ce qu'on aurait comme
9 concurrence dans le marché au niveau des stations
10 hertziennes? Vous m'avez entendue poser la même
11 question ce matin. Quand on parle de Radio-Canada et
12 du secteur francophone, comment, à ce moment-là,
13 réconciliez-vous... vous n'êtes pas d'accord, je
14 suppose, avec Mme Fortin qui dit qu'on n'a pas le
15 choix, au Québec, Radio-Canada va concurrencer.
16 9930 Vous voyez le portrait que je vous
17 fais selon vos propres recommandations et votre vue du
18 secteur comme il existe?
19 9931 M. CREVIER: Personnellement, je
20 trouverais ça très dommageable, et très regrettable
21 surtout, que Radio-Canada se retire des séries
22 dramatiques lourdes et des séries dramatiques en
23 général parce que Radio-Canada a aidé beaucoup à créer
24 ces séries-là et a vraiment fait un travail de qualité
25 et, je pense, même, doit être récompensée pour le
StenoTran
2132
1 travail que Radio-Canada a fait.
2 9932 Quand je parle, moi, du côté
3 commercial de Radio-Canada, je ne le vois pas sur un
4 certain nombre d'éléments et de production qui
5 reflètent de façon... parce que les productions lourdes
6 et les dramatiques également reflètent la culture
7 canadienne. Moi, je le vois davantage sur les
8 négociations sur les jeux olympiques, les droits du
9 hockey, des achats de films américains, des
10 acquisitions et non pas des productions maison. Tout
11 ça fait en sorte que Radio-Canada, là, vient
12 compétitionner le secteur privé. Mais on ne doit pas
13 retirer totalement Radio-Canada d'une expertise
14 extraordinaire qu'elle a développée et des succès
15 remarquables qu'elle a enregistrés aussi.
16 9933 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Donc ce genre de
17 production, pour vous, s'insérerait dans votre
18 recommandation de s'assurer que la télévision d'État
19 soit complémentaire. Et que faites-vous des autres
20 catégories de programmation? Si on enlevait, à ce
21 moment-là, la concurrence de Radio-Canada dans... vous
22 avez vu sans doute les recommandations de TVA à cet
23 effet, qui sont assez précises. Vous étiez là ce
24 matin, je pense, quand on en a discuté plus tôt.
25 9934 Pour essayer de maintenir
StenoTran
2133
1 Radio-Canada, de lui enlever cette force-là dans le
2 marché francophone, est-ce qu'à votre avis il y aurait
3 des effets sur la concurrence dans certains secteurs de
4 programmation ou s'il faudrait se fier, à ce moment-là,
5 à la concurrence entre TQS et TVA au niveau des ondes
6 hertziennes?
7 9935 M. CREVIER: Je reviens sensiblement
8 à la même allusion que je faisais sur les séries
9 dramatiques: Je pense que Radio-Canada peut amener en
10 termes de qualité dans les produits une concurrence qui
11 est saine dans notre système. Moi, quand j'ai fait,
12 par le passé, toujours référence à Radio-Canada en
13 termes, je dirais, d'abus de pouvoir, c'était surtout
14 relié à l'acquisition de droits, à l'acquisition des
15 olympiques, à l'acquisition des droits de sports, à
16 l'acquisition des films américains. Je n'ai jamais
17 compris pourquoi l'argent des contribuables canadiens
18 servait à acheter des films américains à gros prix à
19 Radio-Canada et compétitionner le secteur privé.
20 9936 Que Radio-Canada vienne
21 compétitionner TQS, Télé-Québec, TVA dans le secteur
22 des variétés, des séries dramatiques, des documentaires
23 et tout ça, et de l'information, je trouve ça
24 extraordinaire; au contraire, ça contribue à créer la
25 richesse dans un système et de créer un environnement
StenoTran
2134
1 compétitif sain... parce que la compétition, ce n'est
2 pas uniquement malsain, ça peut être très sain.
3 9937 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors quand vous
4 parlez de la modification du système d'accès de
5 Radio-Canada au fonds, vous verriez possiblement une
6 modification qui ne serait pas totale mais qui serait
7 limitée à certaines catégories visant la
8 complémentarité de Radio-Canada plutôt que la
9 concurrence avec le secteur privé.
10 9938 M. CREVIER: Oui, c'est une façon de
11 le voir. L'autre façon de le voir, ça pourrait être
12 tout simplement de modifier les enveloppes budgétaires
13 et de financer convenablement Radio-Canada pour ses
14 besoins et dire à Radio-Canada: "Maintenant, vous
15 n'avez plus besoin d'avoir accès à ces fonds-là parce
16 qu'on vous a donné les crédits nécessaires pour
17 atteindre vos objectifs et votre mission."
18 9939 LA PRÉSIDENTE: À ce moment-là, vous
19 qui êtes dans le secteur de la production, vous verriez
20 un système beaucoup plus sain.
21 9940 Mme DUFOUR: Ce qu'on peut ajouter
22 aussi, c'est que lorsque le 50 pour cent a été établi,
23 il y a une partie qui était pour combler le financement
24 de Radio-Canada, mais l'autre partie, il n'y avait pas
25 nécessairement les joueurs que l'on retrouve
StenoTran
2135
1 nécessairement aujourd'hui dans les réseaux
2 spécialisés. Il y a de nouveaux joueurs qui font du
3 contenu canadien. Il n'y a peut-être pas la nécessité
4 aujourd'hui de concentrer la moitié d'une enveloppe
5 destinée à un contenu canadien au diffuseur public;
6 c'est de partager plus l'enveloppe avec des joueurs si
7 on veut que les diffuseurs privés et spécialisés s'y
8 impliquent plus, qu'il y ait un accès plus grand parce
9 que le marché a changé.
10 9941 LA PRÉSIDENTE: En tenant compte de
11 cette partie de télédiffuseurs qui est assez nouveau.
12 Mais on revient toujours au Québec, évidemment, et
13 partout au Canada, il y a une proportion de la
14 population pour qui les services spécialisés ne sont
15 pas nécessairement une offre alléchante parce qu'ils ne
16 sont pas abonnés au système de distribution qui leur
17 permettrait de les recevoir. Donc les ondes
18 hertziennes restent encore, pour rencontrer le mandat
19 de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion assez importante.
20 9942 Allez-y.
21 9943 M. HOULE: Je voulais juste dire que
22 la règle a été établie en 1983 au moment de la création
23 du fonds de Téléfilm Canada, et à ce moment-là, même au
24 niveau de la télévision hertzienne, par exemple dans le
25 marché francophone TQS n'existait pas; dans le marché
StenoTran
2136
1 anglophone au Québec Global n'était pas présent, Global
2 était un service régional. Le Conseil a attribué de
3 nouvelles licences à des groupes de propriétés dans les
4 marchés aussi au Canada anglais à Winnipeg, à
5 Vancouver, et caetera.
6 9944 Donc, même dans l'univers de la
7 télévision hertzienne accessible à tout le monde, le
8 poids de Radio-Canada, le poids relatif, a diminué du
9 fait de l'ajout d'une plus grande diversité, et ce
10 qu'on demande, c'est simplement qu'il y ait un certain
11 suivi pour faire des ajustements de sorte que la règle
12 qui a été établie il y a 15 ans reflète un peu plus la
13 composition actuelle de l'industrie.
14 9945 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Évidemment, toutes
15 ces règles ne découlent pas nécessairement du CRTC,
16 mais je pense qu'il est intéressant de voir quand même
17 la vision que les parties intéressées ont de ce que le
18 système dans sa totalité... quelle allure le système
19 devrait avoir.
20 9946 Au niveau de l'intégration verticale
21 entre les télédiffuseurs et la production, si je
22 comprends bien, vous êtes d'avis que l'accès aux fonds
23 ou les avantages fiscaux pour les télédiffuseurs ne
24 devraient pas exister mais, en contrepartie, vous
25 suggérez un fonds nouveau ou une règle nouvelle qui
StenoTran
2137
1 permettrait des investissements de 20 pour cent ou plus
2 de la part canadienne d'un budget, et que ce 20 pour
3 cent là pourrait être comptabilisé comme dépense vers
4 la programmation canadienne, si je me souviens bien, ou
5 si vous recommanderiez qu'il soit accessible pour des
6 crédits fiscaux? C'est votre position?
7 9947 M. GAUDREAU: Effectivement, on pense
8 qu'il y aurait peut-être une avenue intéressante à
9 explorer du côté de la participation des télédiffuseurs
10 dans le produit au-delà des droits de diffusion, des
11 droits de licence. On pense à un investissement dans
12 le produit sur lequel ils pourraient recevoir un crédit
13 d'impôt du même type qu'on reçoit actuellement.
14 9948 M. CREVIER: Juste peut-être une
15 petite remarque; c'est qu'on parle bien
16 d'investissement et on ne parle pas de dépense, qui
17 sont deux nuances totalement différentes.
18 9949 LA PRÉSIDENTE: D'investissement en
19 capital mais qui pourrait être comptabilisé, à votre
20 avis...
21 9950 M. CREVIER: Non.
22 9951 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ah, bon.
23 9952 M. CREVIER: Pour nous, un
24 investissement, c'est vraiment un investissement et ça
25 doit être...
StenoTran
2138
1 9953 LA PRÉSIDENTE: En capital seulement.
2 9954 M. CREVIER: En capital. Ça doit
3 être traité comme un investissement.
4 9955 À titre d'exemple, je ne sais pas,
5 nous, on vient de décider de se lancer dans la
6 production de produits IMAX, et la Caisse de dépôt du
7 Québec a investi 6 millions de dollars au capital du
8 projet IMAX, mais d'aucune façon ça ne fait partie de
9 dépenses; c'est vraiment un investissement.
10 9956 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et qu'est-ce que vous
11 recommandez comme dépenses qui seraient éligibles pour
12 rencontrer le pourcentage de dépenses à la
13 programmation canadienne que vous recommandez soit
14 exigé?
15 9957 M. GAUDREAU: Voulez-vous reprendre
16 la question, s'il vous plaît?
17 9958 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je pense que vous
18 acceptez la proposition de l'Association des
19 producteurs qui continuerait d'exiger, pour les
20 télédiffuseurs, une certaine proportion de leurs
21 revenus vers les dépenses canadiennes. Vous
22 recommandez de continuer la formule A et B au choix des
23 télédiffuseurs.
24 9959 Alors je vous demande quelles
25 seraient les dépenses qui seraient éligibles pour
StenoTran
2139
1 rencontrer ce pourcentage des recettes de l'année
2 précédente.
3 9960 M. HOULE: Ce que nous disons, c'est
4 qu'on suggère que tous les diffuseurs doivent consacrer
5 une partie de leurs revenus, un pourcentage de leurs
6 revenus à titre de dépenses d'émissions canadiennes,
7 comme le Conseil le pratique dans le secteur de la
8 télévision spécialisée et payante depuis déjà plusieurs
9 années, et toute personne qui veut obtenir une licence
10 dans ce secteur-là doit prendre un engagement de cette
11 nature-là. On pense que cette formule s'est avérée
12 efficace dans le secteur de la télévision spécialisée,
13 qui fait beaucoup de contenu canadien et qui livre des
14 auditoires canadiens, et qu'elle devrait être appliquée
15 aux télédiffuseurs conventionnels également.
16 9961 Le pourcentage exact, je pense,
17 devrait être débattu par le Conseil au cas par cas avec
18 chaque diffuseur pour tenir compte de la nature de ce
19 diffuseur-là, de son passé, de sa situation
20 particulière, mais que le principe devrait être que
21 chacun doit consacrer un pourcentage. De cette
22 façon-là, ça assure que s'il y a croissance des revenus
23 des diffuseurs, il y aura croissance des dépenses de
24 programmation canadienne, ce qui n'est pas le cas
25 actuellement. Si on regarde les chiffres que le
StenoTran
2140
1 Conseil a publiés en annexe de l'avis public, on voit
2 que la croissance des dépenses de programmation
3 canadienne des diffuseurs conventionnels au Canada est
4 largement inférieure à la croissance de leurs revenus.
5 9962 M. CREVIER: Je me permettrais, si
6 vous le permettez, Madame Wylie, aussi un commentaire
7 peut-être qui déborde un peu le cadre de votre question
8 et qui est plus large. Vous connaissez très bien la
9 mécanique quand il y a une tenue d'audience comme ça;
10 chacun, chaque groupe, chaque compagnie développe ses
11 points, son mémoire, parle à ses associations
12 respectives pour s'assurer également qu'il y a une
13 forme de concordance.
14 9963 Moi, ce qui m'a beaucoup frappé sur
15 ces audiences-ci, quand j'ai commencé à prendre
16 connaissance un peu de l'ensemble des documents, c'est
17 qu'il y a beaucoup de ce que j'appelle de suggestions
18 concernant la micro réglementation. Quand je me
19 mettais à lire ça, je me disais: Il y a quelque chose
20 qui ne fonctionne pas. On s'en va dans une orientation
21 de globalisation des marchés, et ça a été clairement
22 démontré dans le passé que, quand on visait une
23 globalisation des marchés, la micro réglementation ne
24 pouvait pas tenir.
25 9964 Moi, je pense que ça devrait
StenoTran
2141
1 s'appliquer à ces audiences-ci et à la résultante de
2 ces audiences-ci. Il n'y a pas un pays qui a réussi à
3 développer de façon énergique un secteur industriel
4 dans une orientation de globalisation de marchés quand
5 on a été excessif du point de vue de la micro
6 réglementation. Je regardais même le mémoire que nous,
7 on vous a déposé; il y a plein d'éléments de micro
8 réglementation, de pourcentages, de calculs et tout ça.
9 9965 Dans les faits, je pense qu'il y a
10 quatre grands secteurs qui devraient être adressés par
11 la réglementation de façon simple et efficace: des
12 obligations et un pourcentage sur du contenu canadien;
13 des obligations et un pourcentage sur des dépenses de
14 programmation canadienne; des règles sur la propriété,
15 l'exemple du 33 pour cent d'intégration verticale; et
16 des incitatifs à l'exportation parce que ce qu'on veut
17 également, c'est exporter notre savoir-faire.
18 9966 Donc je pense que ce sont les quatre
19 grands secteurs qui devraient être couverts par des
20 règles simples et efficaces et sans viser une micro
21 réglementation lourde et qui ne pourrait résister, de
22 toute façon, au phénomène de la globalisation.
23 9967 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais il reste quand
24 même que vous continuez à favoriser la formule A et B
25 et qu'à la page 17, au paragraphe 42 je crois, vous
StenoTran
2142
1 semblez entériner les recommandations qui visent à
2 consacrer un pourcentage plus élevé des recettes
3 totales de l'année précédente aux émissions de
4 divertissement et aux documentaires canadiens.
5 9968 À ce moment-là, est-ce que vous
6 entérinez la fameuse proposition 10/10/10 et est-ce que
7 c'est en sus de A et B? Et ça me semble assez micro,
8 finalement, d'établir... alors c'est un peu
9 difficile...
10 9969 M. CREVIER: Vous êtes rendue
11 exactement au point où je faisais tantôt la remarque...
12 9970 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui, ce sont vos
13 recommandations.
14 9971 M. CREVIER: Ce sont nos
15 recommandations, mais ce que je vous disais, c'est que
16 même moi, en prenant connaissance de la
17 réglementation...
18 9972 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ah, vous n'aimez même
19 pas votre propre dossier.
20 9973 M. CREVIER: Bien, je pense qu'il y a
21 eu abus de la part de l'ensemble des participants dans
22 une orientation de micro réglementation, y compris nous
23 autres.
24 9974 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Depuis le début de
25 l'audience.
StenoTran
2143
1 9975 M. CREVIER: Oui, absolument.
2 9976 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et vous avez
3 participé à cette...
4 9977 M. CREVIER: À cette réflexion.
5 9978 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... mauvaise
6 orientation.
7 9979 M. CREVIER: Nous avons participé...
8 9980 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Il ne faut pas...
9 9981 M. CREVIER: ... mais vous m'avez dit
10 tantôt que j'avais le droit de changer d'idée.
11 9982 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Il faut recommencer.
12 On recommence... le 1er novembre on recommence avec
13 M. Crevier, qui va nous mettre sur la bonne piste.
14 9983 Alors vous n'êtes plus d'accord avec
15 la formule A et B et 10 pour cent en sus. Alors lequel
16 des deux, ou est-ce qu'on laisse tout tomber? Est-ce
17 que vous êtes toujours d'avis que c'est nécessaire? Ce
18 n'est pas parce que vous avez vu dans le journal que
19 les radiodiffuseurs allaient tous faire faillite que
20 vous avez pris la peur comme ça?
21 9984 M. CREVIER: Non, bien au contraire.
22 Je pense que tout le monde doit être assujetti à un
23 pourcentage de dépenses de programmation.
24 9985 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais au paragraphe 43
25 vous êtes très précis, 10/10; 10 pour cent des recettes
StenoTran
2144
1 brutes de l'année précédente, ça, vous trouvez que
2 c'est trop spécifique.
3 9986 M. HOULE: Je pense qu'au départ on a
4 consulté les associations; Coscient est membre à la
5 fois de l'APFTQ et du CFTPA, et nous avons appuyé la
6 recommandation du CFTPA, qui visait plutôt une
7 recommandation en termes de pourcentage de dépenses, de
8 pourcentage d'heures, et caetera. Ce que Guy indique
9 maintenant, c'est qu'on appuie largement l'esprit dans
10 lequel la CFTPA l'a fait mais on dit que peut-être
11 qu'il faudrait trouver des règles qui soient moins
12 spécifiques à dire trois heures de tel contenu, 10 pour
13 cent de tel autre et sept heures de tel contenu mais
14 plutôt dire qu'il faut, donc, un pourcentage de contenu
15 canadien qui soit significatif, un pourcentage des
16 dépenses de programmation canadienne... des revenus qui
17 soit consacré aux dépenses de programmation canadienne
18 qui aille en croissant, et laisser un peu plus de
19 souplesse à l'intérieur de ça aux différents diffuseurs
20 pour établir leurs politiques de programmation, mais
21 qu'ils aient des obligations globales en termes
22 d'émissions canadiennes et notamment d'émissions
23 canadiennes de divertissement.
24 9987 M. CREVIER: On disait également dans
25 notre présentation... Laurent y faisait référence dans
StenoTran
2145
1 la présentation en disant: Il faut également
2 encourager le risque mais récompenser également la
3 réussite.
4 9988 Moi, je pense que dans le système
5 actuellement, et avec Téléfilm et avec vous, il y a
6 plein d'éléments de récompense pour les gens qui se
7 conforment à l'essence et qui sont dynamiques à
8 l'intérieur du système. Plein de gens se présentent
9 devant vous pour demander des canaux spécialisés; les
10 gens qui font une contribution majeure au système
11 devraient être priorisés pour ces canaux spécialisés
12 là, les producteurs qui apportent des produits de
13 qualité de contenu devraient être également encouragés
14 dans leur accès à des fonds. On pourrait modifier
15 aisément quelques règles qu'il y a dans le système
16 actuellement pour arriver à un système qui est beaucoup
17 plus dynamique et qui favorise la réussite.
18 9989 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Examinons maintenant
19 quelle autre proposition vous changez.
20 9990 Celle à la page 39, la recommandation
21 5, ou page 5... la recommandation qui dit qu'un
22 pourcentage des dépenses aux indépendants devrait être
23 exigé de tous les télédiffuseurs, incluant les
24 télédiffuseurs spécialisés; un pourcentage très précis
25 des dépenses devrait aller dans la production.
StenoTran
2146
1 9991 Cette recommandation-là, vous y tenez
2 toujours.
3 9992 M. CREVIER: Absolument. Ça fait
4 partie des quatre grandes catégories qu'on a décrites
5 tantôt et c'est une des suggestions que nous faisons
6 relativement aux entreprises à l'intégration; ça
7 s'adresse aux entreprises qui sont non liées.
8 9993 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ça, ce serait un
9 pourcentage des dépenses totales ou un pourcentage du
10 pourcentage que nous exigerions auquel vous ne croyez
11 plus?
12 9994 M. GAUDREAU: Moi, je pense qu'on
13 parle d'un pourcentage en fonction du diffuseur auquel
14 on s'adresse. On sait que TQS, de par sa licence, doit
15 confier une certaine partie de son budget à la
16 production indépendante. Je pense que ça pourrait être
17 le cas pour d'autres diffuseurs, mais à mon avis il
18 faut analyser ça un peu cas par cas parce qu'il y en a
19 qui ont un historique de production dans leurs
20 stations, dans leurs chaînes; d'autres, c'est peut-être
21 plus facile d'aller vers la production indépendante,
22 mais je pense que ça devrait être une politique qui
23 s'applique à tous les diffuseurs.
24 9995 M. CREVIER: D'ailleurs, je pense que
25 ce système-là a été très bien appliqué pour les canaux
StenoTran
2147
1 spécialisés. M. Bureau faisait référence ce matin que
2 pour eux autres c'était un environnement qui est très
3 viable.
4 9996 Je voudrais quand même prendre la
5 peine de corriger un petit peu... je ne voulais pas
6 vous laisser sur une fausse impression. Ce que je
7 disais tantôt, ce n'est pas qu'on ne veut plus avoir de
8 réglementation, bien au contraire, mais qu'on ne veut
9 pas avoir de micro réglementation.
10 9997 Les quatre grands secteurs que j'ai
11 énumérés tantôt sont des secteurs essentiels. Des
12 pourcentages précis sur le contenu canadien, des
13 pourcentages précis sur les dépenses de programmation
14 canadienne, des règles sur la propriété et des
15 incitatifs à l'exportation, c'est quatre grands
16 secteurs qui devraient être totalement couverts par la
17 réglementation.
18 9998 Ce qui m'a frappé, ce que vous
19 expliquais, c'est que quand j'ai pris connaissance des
20 différents mémoires, où chacun arrive avec sa micro
21 réglementation, et là il faut, selon les catégories,
22 ajouter des multiples, multiplier, diviser, on va
23 sortir une bible qui, en bout de ligne... j'ai
24 l'impression, moi, dans une orientation de
25 globalisation, que cette micro réglementation là ne
StenoTran
2148
1 tient pas.
2 9999 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Quelles autres
3 recommandations ont été faites que vous trouvez micro?
4 Si vous acceptez que des pourcentages de recettes
5 annuelles soient dépensés vers la programmation
6 canadienne et qu'à l'intérieur de ça on exige un
7 certain pourcentage pour les indépendants, quand on
8 établit des pourcentages, c'est micro au début.
9 10000 M. CREVIER: Non, micro, moi, je
10 parlais des facteurs multiplicateurs sur les incitatifs
11 à la programmation...
12 10001 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Comme les crédits...
13 10002 M. CREVIER: Les crédits...
14 10003 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... majorés, ce genre
15 de chose là.
16 10004 M. CREVIER: Oui, absolument. Ça, je
17 trouve que c'est de la micro réglementation. Les
18 pourcentages, pour moi, c'est la base même du système.
19 Ça, ce n'est pas de la micro réglementation.
20 10005 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors vous ne
21 croiriez pas, par exemple, au micro management de la
22 promotion et tout ces trucs-là, vous n'y croyez pas.
23 10006 M. CREVIER: Absolument. Je trouve
24 qu'on devrait...
25 10007 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et alors ce serait à
StenoTran
2149
1 la base, qui n'est pas tellement différente de ce que
2 le Conseil fait maintenant, mais vous y ajouteriez des
3 pourcentages précis vers les indépendants.
4 10008 Maintenant, vous dites que ce n'est
5 pas nécessaire d'obliger les télédiffuseurs à
6 rencontrer les exigences additionnelles en matière de
7 diffusion. Vous voulez dire par là les catégories et
8 les heures de diffusion.
9 10009 Qu'est-ce que vous voulez dire par
10 "additionnelles"? Parce que c'est évident qu'en ce
11 moment, au Canada français, on fait beaucoup plus que
12 ce qui est requis. Vous voulez dire additionnelles à
13 ce qui se fait en ce moment ou le simple 60/50?
14 10010 M. HOULE: Je pense que vous faites
15 référence à un passage où on parle de la radiodiffusion
16 de langue française, si je ne me trompe.
17 10011 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui. Ça, c'est au
18 paragraphe 48, à la page 18, et je pense qu'il y a
19 quelque chose de semblable à la page 16, au paragraphe
20 39. Allons voir.
21 10012 M. HOULE: Je crois que ce qu'on
22 dit...
23 10013 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Parce qu'il y a
24 toujours cette idée de...
25 10014 M. HOULE: ... c'est que dans le
StenoTran
2150
1 système de la radiodiffusion de langue française, règle
2 générale, les diffuseurs conventionnels privés non
3 seulement respectent mais outrepassent les exigences
4 minimales en matière du contenu canadien, le 50/60, ils
5 consacrent une partie de leurs revenus en dépenses de
6 programmation canadienne qui est supérieure à celle des
7 diffuseurs de langue anglaise. Donc on ne voit pas
8 vraiment de raison d'imposer aux diffuseurs
9 conventionnels de langue française des obligations
10 additionnelles à celles qui sont déjà là, le 50/60 en
11 termes de contenu.
12 10015 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je vous ai donné des
13 paragraphes et des pages au lieu de l'inverse. C'est à
14 la page 18, au paragraphe 48, où vous dites:
15 "En ce qui a trait aux
16 télédiffuseurs de langue
17 française, privés et publics,
18 nous ne croyons pas qu'il soit
19 nécessaire d'instaurer des
20 exigences réglementaires
21 additionnelles..."
22 Et on met l'accent sur "additionnelles" avec un
23 caractère différent, et alors je me demandais qu'est-ce
24 que ça voulait dire, "additionnelles".
25 10016 Je vais vous dire pourquoi,
StenoTran
2151
1 Madame Dufour. C'est qu'on a parlé beaucoup du côté du
2 Canada français de s'assurer de garder ce qui est
3 acquis, qui est beaucoup plus que 50/60. Alors c'est
4 pour ça que je me demandais si vous ne voulez pas
5 d'exigences additionnelles... on me dit additionnelles
6 à 50/60, qui serait un recul assez sérieux vis-à-vis ce
7 qu'on a ou ce qu'on attend au Québec. C'est dans cette
8 optique-là que je vous pose la question.
9 10017 Vous avez mis l'accent sur le mot
10 "additionnelles", et je me demandais ce que vous
11 vouliez dire.
12 10018 M. HOULE: Je pense que c'est une
13 façon d'indiquer qu'on pense que la réglementation
14 actuelle de 60/50 doit demeurer et on ne croit pas
15 qu'on doit ajouter ni enlever.
16 10019 Guy a parlé tantôt de récompenser le
17 succès, et je pense que ce serait un drôle de
18 raisonnement de dire, parce que les diffuseurs de
19 langue française font plus que les obligations
20 réglementaires ou dépensent plus il faut augmenter ses
21 obligations réglementaires pour les amener au niveau
22 où...
23 10020 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Non, vous me
24 comprenez mal.
25 10021 M. HOULE: O.k. Je m'excuse.
StenoTran
2152
1 10022 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Le 60/50 est beaucoup
2 moins que ce que les radiodiffuseurs font en ce moment
3 et ils semblent pouvoir survivre avec ce qu'ils font.
4 Un intérêt du Conseil et de la population est
5 évidemment est-ce qu'on maintient les acquis et comment
6 le fait-on.
7 10023 Mme DUFOUR: Je pense que,
8 premièrement, pour expliquer le "additionnelles" et
9 pourquoi il est en caractère gras, on se réfère à la
10 première partie du mémoire, qui fait un peu une étude
11 de cas sur ce qui se passe au Canada anglais et ce qui
12 se passe au Canada français. On dit qu'au Québec, dans
13 la production francophone, la programmation canadienne,
14 ce n'est pas un problème. Le problème réside dans le
15 financement.
16 10024 Alors, lorsqu'on dit qu'on n'a pas
17 besoin de créer des règles supplémentaires ou
18 additionnelles, je pense que le "additionnelles" venait
19 en référence aux problèmes dans le marché québécois.
20 10025 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors, à ce
21 moment-là, vous suggérez que ce soit par l'entremise
22 des pourcentages des dépenses qu'on garderait les
23 acquis dans le marché.
24 10026 M. HOULE: Exact. Je pense qu'un
25 pourcentage des revenus devrait être appliqué aux
StenoTran
2153
1 dépenses de programmation canadienne...
2 10027 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et, à votre avis, si
3 le but du Conseil est de maintenir les acquis, ce
4 serait suffisant, avec les impératifs du marché, et
5 caetera, et l'appétit de la population, pour garder le
6 même niveau de programmation canadienne.
7 10028 M. CREVIER: Est-ce que votre
8 question vise à savoir si les quotas devraient être
9 augmentés?
10 10029 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Non, non. C'était
11 simplement que j'étais curieuse de savoir qu'est-ce que
12 vous vouliez dire par "des exigences réglementaires
13 additionnelles", parce que si on reste à 65, le marché
14 change, la fragmentation, la concurrence... à ce
15 moment-là, est-ce que le Conseil ne devrait pas
16 s'inquiéter de la possibilité que le système serait tel
17 qu'on irait à la baisse vers le 60/50?
18 10030 M. CREVIER: Écoutez, moi, je pense
19 qu'il faut tenir compte de deux choses... et c'est là
20 un petit peu tantôt quand je parlais aussi d'une
21 question de micro réglementation et de récompenser la
22 réussite. Si vous adoptez un système comme ça, qu'à
23 chaque fois que quelqu'un réussit à aller plus haut que
24 la barre, vous montez la barre, les gens vont hésiter
25 beaucoup à aller plus haut que la barre.
StenoTran
2154
1 10031 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais là, vous me
2 dites qu'"additionnelles", c'est plus que ce qu'ils
3 font en ce moment.
4 10032 M. CREVIER: Non, pas nécessairement.
5 10033 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais pas plus que
6 60/50.
7 10034 M. CREVIER: Admettons que vous
8 décidiez que la norme est à 60 pour cent, il n'y a pas
9 de problème du côté canada français. Les gens ont
10 toujours dépassé de façon considérable ces éléments-là.
11 10035 Si on parle d'un phénomène où la
12 barre était à 60 pour cent et les gens ont réussi à
13 monter ça à 75 pour cent, moi, je pense qu'on devrait
14 dire bravo et on devrait souligner l'effort de ces
15 gens-là et faciliter leur vie.
16 10036 Si, par le fait qu'ils ont monté à 75
17 pour cent vous décidez de mettre la barre à 75 pour
18 cent, je suis certain que ces gens-là vont y penser
19 deux fois avant d'aller à 80 pour cent. Ce n'est pas
20 une mesure qui encourage la réussite, et moi, je suis
21 dans un système où je trouve qu'on devrait encourager
22 la réussite.
23 10037 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Maintenant, si nous
24 revenions à l'intégration verticale, si je comprends
25 bien votre recommandation 19, ce serait investissements
StenoTran
2155
1 en capital qui ne dépasseraient pas plus que 20 pour
2 cent, je crois.
3 10038 M. CREVIER: Ça dépend. C'est 33
4 pour cent la propriété de l'entreprise et 20 pour cent
5 dans le financement d'un produit.
6 10039 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui, et ça assurerait
7 à ce moment-là que la propriété du produit resterait
8 celle du producteur, même s'il y avait...
9 10040 M. CREVIER: Je crois que c'est une
10 mesure de protection de la propriété intellectuelle,
11 effectivement.
12 10041 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais en donnant quand
13 même un incitatif pour l'investissement en capital par
14 les télédiffuseurs.
15 10042 Vous nous recommandez, à la page
16 49 -- je pense que c'est bien ça -- recommandation 21,
17 que le Conseil favorise un accès plus large à la
18 coproduction internationale. Comment entrevoyez-vous
19 les efforts du Conseil dans cette direction-là?
20 10043 M. CREVIER: Essentiellement par la
21 reconnaissance des accords de coproduction. Je crois
22 qu'il y a des accords de coproduction actuellement dans
23 plus de 40 quelques pays, ce qui est une opportunité
24 extraordinaire. Je pense que le Canada également est
25 dans une situation remarquable du fait qu'il est
StenoTran
2156
1 capable de maîtriser une production à la fois en
2 anglais et à la fois en français, nous avons une
3 ouverture vers les marchés américains et européens.
4 10044 On vit, comme j'y faisais référence
5 tantôt, dans un environnement de globalisation. Je
6 pense qu'il y a là une création importante de richesse
7 pour le Canada. Si on réussit à exporter notre
8 savoir-faire, et on a un savoir-faire qu'on a très bien
9 développé, il s'agit juste d'être ouverts à ça et de
10 s'assurer que... dans les quatre catégories que je
11 citais tantôt, il y en avait une qui était des
12 incitatifs à l'exportation. Je pense que c'est
13 souhaitable.
14 10045 On tient ce langage-ci devant le
15 forum du CRTC, mais on pourrait également le tenir
16 auprès de Téléfilm. Et je pense que c'est souhaitable
17 que toutes les règles canadiennes visent à
18 l'exportation de notre savoir-faire.
19 10046 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Voyez-vous des
20 mesures concrètes? Est-ce que vous entrevoyez des
21 mesures concrètes ou des changements que le Conseil
22 pourrait faire lui-même pour favoriser ces productions?
23 10047 M. GAUDREAU: Je pense que les fonds
24 actuellement disponibles devraient favoriser
25 particulièrement les coproductions internationales.
StenoTran
2157
1 10048 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors ce sont surtout
2 les règles du fond qui sont en cause, pas celles
3 nécessairement du Conseil. Alors ce serait simplement
4 une recommandation que nous recommandions...
5 10049 M. GAUDREAU: Absolument.
6 Absolument.
7 10050 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... si possible, ou
8 que nous discutions des règles pour encourager ces
9 productions.
10 10051 M. HOULE: Si je peux ajouter un
11 point, Madame la Vice-Présidente, le Conseil a amorcé
12 en parallèle un processus de consultation sur la
13 définition d'"émission canadienne", et là, le Conseil
14 peut intervenir directement. Il l'a déjà fait dans le
15 passé...
16 10052 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Par l'entremise...
17 10053 M. HOULE: ... pour reconnaître les
18 coproductions...
19 10054 LA PRÉSIDENTE: De ces définitions
20 elles-mêmes...
21 10055 M. HOULE: ... comme des émissions
22 canadiennes.
23 10056 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... mais qui seraient
24 plus vide de sens si le fond n'est pas aussi au même
25 port.
StenoTran
2158
1 10057 Mme DUFOUR: Oui. Il y a également la
2 reconsidération de la définition. On peut considérer
3 le crédit de 105 pour cent au dramatique qui, je vous
4 donne un exemple, peut être étendu aux coproductions.
5 10058 LA PRÉSIDENTE: En parlant de micro
6 réglementation, à la page 46, au paragraphe 146, vous
7 considérez ou recommandez qu'il y ait des seuils minima
8 pour les droits de diffusion que doit verser un
9 télédiffuseurs, et ils sont micro exacts: 25 pour cent
10 de la part canadienne du budget d'une émission
11 dramatique et 15 pour cent des autres catégories
12 d'émissions.
13 10059 Avez-vous changé d'idée sur ce
14 paragraphe?
15 10060 M. CREVIER: Je n'ai pas changé
16 d'idée, comme je n'ai pas changé d'idée sur la micro
17 réglementation. Je vais vous dire franchement que, si
18 le Conseil fait un effort remarquable pour ne pas aller
19 dans la micro réglementation et que vous laissez tomber
20 tous les aspects, pas uniquement celui-là, je vais être
21 très favorable à ça.
22 10061 LA PRÉSIDENTE: C'est un bon quid pro
23 quo à votre avis. Mais ça, ce serait encore le fonds
24 qui établirait ces seuils.
25 10062 M. HOULE: Quand le Conseil a créé
StenoTran
2159
1 effectivement le Fonds de production, il avait lui-même
2 établi des seuils minima de licence. Ceci dit, sans
3 viser la micro réglementation du tout, ces seuils ont
4 été modifiés à plusieurs reprises suite à des
5 représentations au fond.
6 10063 Ce qu'on tente d'indiquer, c'est
7 qu'il y a eu des représentations qui ont été faites
8 devant vous de certains diffuseurs qui voudraient qu'on
9 considère les droits de diffusion qu'il verse pour
10 acquérir une émission comme un investissement, et on
11 dit qu'il faut faire la distinction entre des droits de
12 diffusion et un investissement en capital; l'un ne peut
13 pas servir pour l'autre.
14 10064 Les diffuseurs ont manifesté
15 l'intérêt de participer à la propriété des émissions
16 indépendantes à travers l'investissement. On dit: On
17 est d'accord, on est favorable à ça, mais à la
18 condition qu'elles ne viennent pas se soustraire si on
19 nous donnait avant 25 pour cent de la valeur du produit
20 en droit et on dit: Maintenant, on vous en donne 10
21 pour cent et on investit 15. Il n'y a pas plus
22 d'argent dans le système.
23 10065 Donc il faudrait qu'ils aient payé
24 d'abord le droit de diffusion selon la valeur marchande
25 du produit avant, et on a repris les seuils qui avaient
StenoTran
2160
1 été proposés par le Conseil dans le Fonds de
2 production.
3 10066 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Maintenant, dans un
4 continuum entre la position du CFTPA, que vous
5 endossiez jusqu'à il n'y a pas longtemps, qui est
6 beaucoup plus précise, et celle de l'ACR, est-ce que
7 vous atteignez le milieu ou vous allez plus loin?
8 Est-ce que vous pensez que la position de l'ACR de se
9 fier sur des objectifs d'auditoire pour y arriver est
10 un peu trop macro?
11 10067 M. CREVIER: Je vais vous dire que je
12 suis assez embêté de répondre à cette question-là parce
13 que j'ai cru remarquer dans le déroulement des
14 audiences que c'était une question qui revenait à peu
15 près à tout le monde, et je n'ai pas encore entendu
16 quelqu'un qui était capable d'y répondre, tout comme
17 j'ai parlé à beaucoup d'intervenants dans le milieu et
18 je n'ai pas encore rencontré quelqu'un qui comprend la
19 proposition de l'ACR.
20 10068 Je vais vous dire même franchement
21 que je me permettrais peut-être un petit commentaire à
22 l'effet que je ne suis pas sûr qu'ils la comprennent
23 très bien eux-mêmes, quand je regarde les explications
24 qu'ils ont données. Donc, si vous permettez, je
25 m'abstiendrais de commenter la position de l'ACR.
StenoTran
2161
1 10069 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Maintenant, nous
2 allons terminer avec une micro question. Vous m'avez
3 entendue poser cette question-là.
4 10070 Nous sommes un peu curieux de la
5 position de CINAR/Nelvana, puisque vous êtes vous-même
6 dans la production, qui proposait ou qui nous suggérait
7 qu'il y a une... que dans le marché c'est assez commun
8 que les diffuseurs puissent obtenir une part de
9 propriété dans une production équivalent à 50 pour cent
10 de la valeur de leur investissement en sus des droits
11 de diffusion une fois qu'ils ont recouvré entièrement
12 leur investissement, et eux, ils étaient d'avis que
13 cette méthode soit entérinée en règle quelconque.
14 10071 Est-ce que vous comprenez bien ce
15 dont ils parlent et est-ce que vous êtes d'accord?
16 10072 M. CREVIER: Oui, je comprends bien
17 ce dont ils parlent, en tout cas je pense bien le
18 comprendre. Ce que je crois comprendre, dans le fond,
19 c'est que CINAR dit oui à ce que quelqu'un puisse
20 investir comme investisseur, mais CINAR propose de
21 limiter le rendement de l'investissement à 50 pour
22 cent.
23 10073 Pour moi, j'ai un peu de difficulté à
24 comprendre la nécessité d'imposer une limite sur un
25 rendement. Quand vous investissez dans une production,
StenoTran
2162
1 vous prenez un risque, et ce risque-là, si la
2 production est mauvaise, vous n'avez pas de rendement,
3 vous avez un rendement qui est négatif; si la
4 production est bonne, vous avez un rendement qui est
5 positif.
6 10074 Je ne vois pas pourquoi on limiterait
7 en bout de ligne le rendement à 50 pour cent pour
8 quelqu'un qui décide d'investir. Si quelqu'un décide
9 de nous accompagner dans une production IMAX, à titre
10 d'exemple, et que nous autres, on décide de produire un
11 film sur les caribous, il y a un risque qui est énorme.
12 Si la personne prend le risque et c'est le hit de
13 l'année, je pense que son risque est récompensé si la
14 production fait beaucoup d'argent et va au-delà d'un
15 rendement de 50 pour cent, mais déjà un rendement de 50
16 pour cent, c'est beaucoup.
17 10075 J'ai de la difficulté à comprendre
18 pourquoi CINAR tient à... je suis convaincu que
19 Micheline maîtrise très bien ce dossier-là aussi et
20 qu'elle a une raison de vouloir limiter le rendement,
21 mais j'ai de la difficulté, moi.
22 10076 On est dans un concept
23 d'investisseur, et je ne vois pas pourquoi on limite un
24 rendement dans un concept d'investisseur.
25 10077 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Alors vous préférez
StenoTran
2163
1 votre position, qui serait une limite de 20 pour cent
2 de la propriété?
3 10078 M. CREVIER: Dans les deux cas il y a
4 des limites, parce qu'il ne peut pas y avoir un
5 investissement de plus que 49 pour cent. Si
6 l'investisseur investit plus de 49 pour cent, ce n'est
7 plus une production...
8 10079 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Est-ce que le but ici
9 n'est pas de limiter...
10 10080 M. CREVIER: Non, ça ne limitait pas
11 l'investissement, ça limitait le rendement sur
12 l'investissement...
13 10081 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ça limitait le
14 rendement sur l'investissement.
15 10082 M. CREVIER: ... ce qui est très
16 différent.
17 10083 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Voilà. Merci
18 beaucoup. Au revoir et bon voyage de retour.
19 10084 Nous vous remercions de toutes vos
20 micro réponses.
21 10085 M. CREVIER: Je vous remercie
22 beaucoup.
23 10086 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Madame la Secrétaire.
24 1510
25 10087 MS BÉNARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
StenoTran
2164
1 10088 The next presentation will be by the
2 Canadian Association of Film Distributors and
3 Exporters, l'Association canadienne des distributeurs
4 et exportateurs de films. J'inviterais M. Paradis et
5 ses collègues à s'avancer.
6 10089 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon,
7 gentlemen. Go ahead when you are ready.
8 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
9 10090 M. PARADIS: Madame la Présidente,
10 Mesdames et Messieurs les Membres du Conseil, je me
11 présente, je suis Richard Paradis, président de
12 l'Association canadienne des distributeurs et
13 exportateurs de films. Je suis accompagné aujourd'hui,
14 à ma droite, d'André Link, qui est le chef
15 d'exploitation de Lions Gate Films, d'Andy Myers, qui
16 est vice-président, Distribution chez Behaviour; à ma
17 gauche, Victor Loewy, qui est le président du conseil
18 d'Atlantis Alliance Motion Picture Films, et de Dan
19 Lyon, qui est le vice-président chez Motion
20 International.
21 10091 L'association représente les intérêts
22 des plus importantes entreprises, sous contrôle
23 canadien, de distribution au Canada. En se présentant
24 devant vous aujourd'hui, l'association vise un objectif
25 fort précis. Nous voulons assurer au cinéma canadien
StenoTran
2165
1 sa juste part dans la programmation offerte au public
2 canadien par les télédiffuseurs. Nous sommes d'avis
3 que la télévision est un médium extraordinaire pour
4 diffuser des longs métrages canadiens ainsi que pour
5 éveiller l'intérêt des téléspectateurs pour de tels
6 films.
7 10092 Comme vous le savez, l'ensemble des
8 intervenants du domaine du cinéma canadien travaillent
9 actuellement avec le ministère du Patrimoine à revoir
10 notre politique nationale dans le domaine du long
11 métrage, et nous pouvons vous affirmer d'ores et déjà
12 qu'il se dégage un consensus parmi les différents
13 intervenants. En effet, créateurs, producteurs,
14 distributeurs, propriétaires de salles de cinéma et le
15 public canadien s'entendent pour dire que les
16 radiodiffuseurs doivent jouer un rôle plus important
17 dans la production, promotion et la diffusion de notre
18 cinéma national.
19 10093 It is important to note that when the
20 Department of Canadian Heritage and its Minister,
21 Sheila Copps, launched its Canadian Feature Film Policy
22 Review in February of this year, it was clearly stated
23 in the department's discussion paper and we quote:
24 "With respect to broadcasting,
25 many suggested that Canada
StenoTran
2166
1 should build on the success of
2 broadcasters, such as the UK's
3 Channel 4 or Canal + in France.
4 These broadcasters have
5 demonstrated a strong commitment
6 to their respective national
7 film industries by participating
8 actively in their financing,
9 promotion and broadcasting.
10 Another possibility is modifying
11 broadcast licences upon renewal
12 to encourage Canadian
13 broadcasters to dedicate more
14 financial resources and
15 broadcasting time to feature
16 films."
17 10094 CAFDE believes strongly that the
18 Commission must use this historic public hearing to
19 formally recognize the important role of feature films
20 in the Canadian broadcasting system and the programming
21 schedules of both conventional broadcasters and
22 specialty and pay services.
23 10095 Broadcasters, both private and
24 public, have a habit of using feature films extensively
25 during this critical three week survey sweeps in the
StenoTran
2167
1 fall and spring of each year, which help determine for
2 the following year the advertising rates the
3 broadcasters can then charge the advertisers. There is
4 no doubt that feature films deliver audiences.
5 10096 What we are asking the Commission to
6 do is much like you have done in the past for
7 conventional programming, require from broadcasters a
8 commitment and dedicated funding towards Canadian
9 feature films to be shown in prime time.
10 10097 And what does the public, the
11 viewers, think of our proposal, especially in light of
12 the CAB's statements regarding the need to concentrate
13 on increasing viewership to Canadian programming?
14 10098 In the survey research we submitted
15 with our written brief, 69 per cent of respondents
16 strongly agreed that it is very important that Canadian
17 feature films be shown on Canadian television.
18 Approximately six out of ten respondents strongly
19 agreed that people would watch Canadian feature films
20 if they were promoted and advertised better.
21 10099 In your own CROP survey, 54 per cent
22 of respondents claimed that there are not enough
23 Canadian films presented on television. The lack of
24 Canadian films got the highest score of dissatisfaction
25 from respondents.
StenoTran
2168
1 10100 As distributors, we are convinced
2 that the only way to create an interest in our films is
3 if Canadians get to see them and considering that
4 Canadians spend an average of 23 hours a week watching
5 television, it remains in our eyes one of the best
6 means available to reach them to promote Canadian films
7 and to have them watch them.
8 10101 For Canadians to truly be able to
9 access Canadian feature films through television,
10 conventional broadcasters have to be part of the mix.
11 The share of viewing of Canadian pay and specialty
12 services, while growing in the case of specialty,
13 remains marginal relative to the tremendous draw of
14 viewers to programming presented by conventional
15 broadcasters.
16 10102 As we mentioned earlier, both in
17 France and Great Britain broadcasters are increasingly
18 involved in financing and broadcasting feature films.
19 10103 In Canada, broadcasters contribute
20 little to the actual development and production of
21 Canadian feature films. A recent study released by la
22 SODEC covering 1996-97, shows that the share of
23 broadcaster investment in 30 feature film projects with
24 a total budget of over $107 million, was a meagre 2.1
25 per cent, representing $450,000 in investment and $1.8
StenoTran
2169
1 million for licence fees.
2 10104 With regards to the CAB proposal,
3 that Canadian broadcasters should not be excluded as an
4 eligible producer or distributor of Canadian feature
5 films, or any other type of production, CAFDE shares
6 the position of the two producer associations in
7 rejecting that proposal.
8 10105 Broadcasters already have a choice
9 privilege to use the airwaves, to benefit from the low
10 cost to them of high-quality productions from the
11 independent producers and have their program rights
12 protected through simultaneous substitution. We fail
13 to see how their moving in on the independent sector
14 will ultimately benefit the broadcasting system without
15 seriously affecting the capacity of both the producers
16 and distributors of being able to maintain viable
17 operations.
18 10106 It is not appropriate for
19 broadcasters to get involved in distribution rights in
20 either feature films or television programs unless they
21 are major equity investors in either type of project.
22 The only way Canadian independent production and
23 distribution companies can survive and grow in the long
24 term is by building up their catalogue. Conventional
25 broadcasters, for their part, have been consistently
StenoTran
2170
1 reducing their share of commitment to Canadian
2 programming their licence fees over the last few years.
3 10107 The Minister of Canadian Heritage,
4 Sheila Copps, made her views clearly known on this
5 issue at this year's Banff Television Festival. At
6 that time, the Minister stated that she had no
7 intention of caving in to TV broadcasters lobbying to
8 change current funding rules to cut out the independent
9 production sector and get public funding directly.
10 Such a move would also give them world distribution
11 rights for programs. The Minister stated clearly that
12 the fear of the independent production sector was, and
13 we quote:
14 "...a legitimate fear: A
15 licence to broadcast television
16 is not necessarily a licence to
17 take over production. If you're
18 talking about being a partner, a
19 partner means putting your money
20 where your mouth is."
21 10108 We agree with the Minister.
22 10109 With regards to the CBC, we believe
23 that the public broadcaster should assume much more
24 responsibility for the production, promotion and
25 broadcast of Canadian feature films. However, we
StenoTran
2171
1 disagree with the approach proposed by the CBC which
2 wishes to get involved at all levels of feature film
3 production from script writing to distribution. The
4 CBC should be an active participant only as an
5 investor, broadcaster and promoter of Canadian films,
6 much like the BBC does in Britain.
7 10110 Furthermore, when the Commission
8 reviews the plans of the CBC next year, it should
9 review the role of the public broadcaster in actively
10 supporting Canada's feature film sector. Why does the
11 CBC not have an ongoing television program offering in
12 prime time some visibility to our domestic cinema and
13 its actors, its creators, its producers and directors?
14 Why does the CBC not promote Canadian films when they
15 are in the theatre circuit?
16 10111 CAFDE recommends the Commission
17 examine all proposals fro,m broadcasters, both private
18 and public, at renewal time to evaluate what
19 commitments each one is prepared to do to help the
20 Canadian feature film industry.
21 10112 On the issue of North American
22 rights, our association considers the Commission must
23 use this unique opportunity to resolve the serious
24 problem which has undermined our capacity as
25 distributors to fully benefit from the potential of our
StenoTran
2172
1 own domestic market. The CRTC must put in place a
2 regulatory structure which will at last recognize
3 Canada as a distinct market from the U.S. for film and
4 television rights.
5 10113 The Commission is aware of the recent
6 appeal that the association launched with regards to
7 the CRTC decisions regarding DTH pay-per-view and the
8 issue of Canada being recognized as a distinct market
9 for acquiring non-proprietary film product from foreign
10 sources. The federal government decided on June 4 to
11 uphold the CRTC decisions, but at the same time stated
12 that the government is nonetheless, and we quote:
13 "...committed to the development
14 of a strong Canadian film and
15 television industry, which
16 includes a distinct Canadian
17 market for film and television
18 rights. The feature film policy
19 review and the CRTC's policy
20 review on Canadian programming
21 now underway will be examining
22 ways to achieve this objective."
23 10114 On this issue, it was mentioned by
24 both producer associations earlier in this proceeding
25 that it is becoming increasingly difficult to get the
StenoTran
2173
1 American studios to recognize that Canada is in effect
2 a separate country from the United States.
3 10115 Canadian feature film producers and
4 distributors have to deal on a daily basis with the
5 overwhelming domination of American product on our
6 theatre screens, which historically has not resulted in
7 any concrete benefits for the Canadian feature film
8 industry.
9 10116 The Commission must realize that
10 Canadian distributors control less than 15 per cent of
11 the feature film distribution revenues generated in
12 Canada and that this seriously limits the capacity of
13 Canadian-owned distributors to contribute to the
14 production and distribution/promotion of Canadian
15 films.
16 10117 CAFDE believes that the present
17 policy review offers a unique opportunity to truly
18 integrate the Canadian feature film industry as
19 full-fledged partner in developing quality Canadian
20 content which can effectively contribute to adding
21 value to the program schedules of Canadian broadcasters
22 on an ongoing basis.
23 10118 En guise de conclusion, nous
24 demandons au CRTC de faire siennes les recommandations
25 suivantes:
StenoTran
2174
1 10119 - Exiger des télédiffuseurs privés et
2 publics non seulement qu'ils investissent dans les
3 longs métrages canadiens mais qu'ils en fassent aussi
4 la promotion et qu'ils les diffusent aux heures de
5 grande écoute.
6 10120 - Reconnaître la nécessité d'un
7 marché canadien distinct et indépendant dans le domaine
8 des droits des émissions de télévision et des longs
9 métrages.
10 10121 - Exiger que tous les télédiffuseurs
11 canadiens acquièrent des distributeurs canadiens les
12 droits de non propriétaires des longs métrages
13 étrangers.
14 10122 Nous vous remercions de votre
15 attention et sommes prêts à répondre à vos questions.
16 10123 LA PRÉSIDENTE: La conseillère
17 Pennefather.
18 10124 Good afternoon, gentlemen.
19 10125 It is a pleasure to see you all here
20 today. I feel the urge to take advantage of the
21 presence of such experience from those who built, a
22 number of you, the Canadian film distribution industry
23 in this country, to quiz you at length about the future
24 of Canadian feature films, but I understand you have a
25 pressing engagement, so I will be as precise as
StenoTran
2175
1 possible.
2 10126 In fact, your oral presentation has
3 brought certain precisions to your written submission
4 and I appreciate that. So, I would like to in fact
5 just make sure that I have understood some of the
6 points that you raised this afternoon that clarify your
7 written submission, or we can clarify it further as the
8 case may be.
9 10127 On peut répondre en anglais ou en
10 français, comme on veut. On va faire ça dans les deux
11 langues.
12 10128 I will refer to the written
13 submission first. It is very clear from what you have
14 said, both today and in that submission, that Canada's
15 broadcasters are key to the future of feature films.
16 10129 I don't think this is a new concept.
17 In fact, broadcasters tell us that they currently
18 acquire the rights to all Canadian features that are
19 available and suitable for conventional television.
20 Notice I said conventional television.
21 10130 So, when one sits back and says on
22 the one hand we are being told they are doing what they
23 can and on the other hand you obviously have another
24 opinion on that, can you give me a comment on this
25 position, that in fact they are using what is available
StenoTran
2176
1 and suitable at this moment, and I did say conventional
2 television.
3 10131 MR. PARADIS: I think at the table
4 you are in your right, we do have just about the
5 history of Canadian film and distribution in Canada.
6 We have discussed this question --
7 10132 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I do have
8 to say I said "messieurs" with a touch of a wink. I am
9 sure there are other players, but of course you would
10 expect me to say that.
11 10133 MR. PARADIS: Who are members, by the
12 way.
13 10134 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Yes.
14 Thank you.
15 10135 MR. PARADIS: We now have Red Sky,
16 who is very well represented by the other gender group
17 in our association.
18 10136 I think what we are worried about and
19 why we are bringing this up and we do know that there
20 is this myth out there that Canadian broadcasters and
21 specialty or pay use Canadian films, the ones that they
22 would say are appropriate for their channels, but I
23 think that I would leave André Link and Victor to maybe
24 discuss this because they are both quite aware of what
25 the deals are with the broadcasters. Our
StenoTran
2177
1 under-standing is that there is nine out of ten
2 Canadian films that could be on television that don't
3 show up on television.
4 10137 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: That would
5 be appreciated. Thank you.
6 10138 MR. LINK: First of all, I must say
7 that for a Canadian distributor to find a broadcaster
8 to put the film on the air is a very difficult and
9 arduous task. It is not granted a situation that it's
10 the way that a film can get on to pay television. If
11 it is a theatrical feature it is not a problem. They
12 will play.
13 10139 It gets put on in some of the
14 specialty services, but to get on to the convention and
15 over-the-air is very difficult. It is especially
16 difficult to get on prime time. Occasionally, the
17 problem is that if you don't get the major networks to
18 carry your films, it means that the population is
19 deprived from being able to see it.
20 10140 We are selling Canadian films. Some
21 get sold in Montreal and some get sold in different
22 parts of the country on the basis of selectively
23 selling each market, but it is very difficult to sell
24 feature films, Canadian feature films unless they are a
25 locomotive to the overall system. The CBC has cut
StenoTran
2178
1 back, CTV is playing very few of them, Global is not
2 playing any of them. It is a little better in Quebec.
3 I must say that the Quebec situation is better, but
4 even there there is no relation between the cost of a
5 film and the licence fees that we receive.
6 10141 Therefore, there is a great
7 difficulty in getting sufficient monies back, so that
8 we can get the system rolling. It is not at all the
9 same in other countries, like in Europe where there is
10 much more significant involvement by the broadcasters
11 and this is what we are lacking.
12 10142 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Yes. I
13 take your point. I think that is putting your finger
14 on it, the involvement of the broadcasters.
15 10143 What I read in your paper and our
16 discussion is how to arrange a new partnership which is
17 more effective for the present promotion and financing
18 of feature films. So, if we go through each of those,
19 you have said in your brief, you also say that
20 appropriate financing should be allocated towards
21 developing Canadian features, both from broadcaster
22 commitments to Canadian programming and also from
23 public or private funds that exist and will be created
24 in the future.
25 10144 Regarding the will be created in the
StenoTran
2179
1 future, do you know something that we don't know? Is
2 there something there? That's kind of an open-ended
3 comment.
4 10145 MR. PARADIS: We heard this morning
5 this morning that if we take 5 per cent of the telecom
6 receipts in a year we are looking at quite a bit of
7 money.
8 10146 THE CHAIRPERSON: It's already in the
9 works.
10 10147 MR. LYON: The CRTC could buy
11 Polygram with that money.
12 10148 MR. PARADIS: I think we were looking
13 at the fact that the DTH people are coming in with new
14 funds. There are applications before the Commission
15 for new licences and, obviously, there are going to be
16 new players coming in with new money.
17 10149 As you know, the fund that was
18 created for the Canadian Television Fund, the essence
19 of the money is going to more conventional television
20 programming and there is a component for film. A lot
21 of it is for film that is made for television.
22 10150 So, we are trying to get at feature
23 films and trying to do -- we tried in our written brief
24 to show you how foreign and you know that foreign
25 broadcasters are quite heavily involved in films. Yes,
StenoTran
2180
1 it is different in France and Great Britain because of
2 the history, but we do think that in Canada, as we are
3 looking at a new regulatory mode for broadcasting and
4 Canadian content that we have come to the point where
5 we have to say Canadian feature films are an important
6 component and how can we help that.
7 10151 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I gather
8 from your statement today you are saying to the
9 broadcasters that if indeed you are looking for
10 viewership feature films will draw viewers. I assume
11 that is the comment there.
12 10152 But in addition to that, you are
13 saying you want greater commitment. Are you supporting
14 the 10, 10, 10 proposal of the CFTPA or are you
15 supporting, for example, I believe it is the 7, 7, 7,
16 11 of the Directors Guild?
17 10153 MR. PARADIS: Well, anywhere between
18 7, 7, 7 and 15, 15, 15. I think you are being put
19 forward all kinds of numbers. I think that some of the
20 proposals go quite a distance from what we have in the
21 actual context now. The CAB is trying to do another
22 numbers game to say that if we did go to the 10, 10, 10
23 it would mean that they wouldn't be in the broadcasting
24 business any more.
25 10154 So, I think it is for the Commission
StenoTran
2181
1 to take all these proposals and to figure out what the
2 measure is to give the broadcasters opportunities to
3 make interesting revenues, but also ensure that they
4 are contributing back to the system.
5 10155 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: So, in
6 those terms too feature films as a component of
7 underrepresented categories, you want to be very
8 precise. You are talking about feature film.
9 10156 If we put an emphasis on feature film
10 in prime time are we risking the disappearance of or a
11 difficulty in placing the other kinds of
12 underrepresented programming?
13 10157 MR. PARADIS: No. I think that in
14 the case of the CFTPA they have shown that there is
15 still room in what we call prime time for Canadian
16 programming and some English broadcasters have even
17 more space left in prime time for Canadian programming
18 than others. Even if we had one Canadian feature film
19 in prime time on one broadcaster once a month, it would
20 be a big improvement on what we have right now.
21 10158 So what we are saying is that when we
22 get the feature film policy and whatever we get out of
23 the policy to develop more Canadian films. We are
24 hoping that everything will be in sync so that these
25 films that will be made -- the film industry is going
StenoTran
2182
1 to try and generate about 35 theatrical-released films
2 a year. If they don't get an opportunity to be seen by
3 Canadians -- it's a circle in a way. If people see
4 these films on Canadian television, they will start
5 going to see Canadian films.
6 10159 It is a little bit the same dilemma
7 you had at the Commission 10 or 15 years ago when
8 Canadian broadcasters weren't interested in Canadian
9 content. It was more or less imposed on them and now
10 they are coming here and they say, "Hey, that's the
11 biggest thing we have ever had." So, we think we have
12 got to do the same thing with feature films right now.
13 10160 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: It does
14 seem that we have been going around this circle for
15 some time and this is why I find it important that get
16 I hope a little time to ask you how Canada's feature
17 film industry is finally going to move forward. I know
18 there is the review going on.
19 10161 In this particular discussion we are
20 looking at broadcasting and features and there are two
21 pieces of the puzzle. I just want to make sure I have
22 understood your proposals, the promotion side and the
23 financing side.
24 10162 On the promotion side, you are
25 encouraging broadcasters to promote features. Should
StenoTran
2183
1 this promotion time be counted as expenditures on
2 Canadian programming? Do you have any concerns about
3 that?
4 10163 MR. LINK: If I may, I believe it
5 should because anything that we would get air time to
6 create interest would benefit greatly the feature film
7 sector. It would get people in a theatre. It would
8 get them familiar with the themes of the pictures being
9 shot and so on.
10 10164 So, I believe if that is the offset
11 why not. It would certainly help us.
12 10165 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Do you
13 also agree with the proposal that promotion of Canadian
14 features not count as advertising time if the
15 broadcaster promotes a film while in theatrical
16 release, even if the broadcaster is not carrying that
17 same film?
18 10166 MR. LINK: Absolutely.
19 10167 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: What about
20 the famous star system in English Canada? Ça n'existe
21 pas. Nécessairement, je veux qu'on soit clairs qu'on
22 parle des deux marchés et qu'il y a des points
23 distincts, et je pense que vous avez fait ce point-là.
24 10168 Promotion in terms of English Canada,
25 besides what we have mentioned, what more can we do?
StenoTran
2184
1 What more would you suggest that the broadcasting
2 community do?
3 10169 Mr. Loewy, do you wish to answer?
4 10170 MR. LOEWY: I really think we don't
5 have enough entertainment shows in prime time which
6 originate in Canada. So, first of all, we have no
7 place to promote the films and promote the stars. The
8 shows that are going on now are mostly on TV in the
9 small regional carriers, so there is no national show
10 left dedicated to the feature film industry. They are
11 mostly American pick-ups.
12 10171 So, I don't know how we can oblige
13 the broadcasters to show more of this type of show.
14 10172 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: That is
15 basically my question. Do you have a proposal for what
16 would make it worth their while, encourage them to do
17 so?
18 1535
19 10173 MR. LOEWY: No, I don't.
20 10174 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Right here
21 and now today.
22 10175 MR. LOEWY: No. It is something we
23 have wrestled without throughout our career, and
24 unfortunately we don't have a solution to that. When
25 somebody becomes famous and well-known in English
StenoTran
2185
1 Canada, they invariably go to Hollywood and we lose
2 most Canadian stars.
3 10176 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: We are
4 talking about feature films.
5 10177 MR. LOEWY: Yes.
6 10178 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I wanted
7 to be clear that that came with certain difficulties;
8 not movie of the week, not long form drama feature.
9 10179 MR. LOEWY: Yes.
10 10180 MR. PARADIS: If you watch Pamela
11 Wallin on the CBC, she on occasion invites people from
12 the industry to talk about the industry; either actors
13 or people that are producers. Although she seems to be
14 trying to do that more often, how many people are
15 actually watching in that kind of a specialized market
16 area?
17 10181 It is not a show that is dedicated to
18 that, in the same way that "Entertainment Tonight"
19 might be.
20 10182 I think what we are trying to say --
21 and producers are also saying the same thing -- is that
22 we have to find a way in English Canada, and some
23 broadcaster has to come up with the genie idea of how
24 to do a show that is going to interest Canadians and
25 talk about the whole industry and how it is moving.
StenoTran
2186
1 10183 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: This
2 brings me to the financing side. If I am correct, you
3 have said that broadcasters should not have access to
4 the Production Fund, to the EIP or the Telefilm Fund.
5 10184 MR. PARADIS: That is right.
6 10185 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: On the
7 other hand, you want to be a full-fledged partner in
8 developing Canadian content, and you expect the
9 broadcaster to be a partner in the future of feature
10 film.
11 10186 What about equity investments now?
12 Are you comfortable with, on the other hand,
13 broadcasters investing in the production of feature;
14 and if so, how would that happen?
15 10187 MR. LINK: There is no reason why
16 there should not be equity investors that get a
17 proportionate share of the returns and profits.
18 10188 I would say that it would be very
19 useful to have them as partners.
20 10189 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I think
21 Madam Wylie raised a point, in terms of the kind of
22 partnership that was suggested to us yesterday by
23 CINAR; that one of the formulae used in the industry is
24 that broadcasters can take an ownership in a production
25 equivalent to 50 percent of the value of their
StenoTran
2187
1 investment, over and above licence fee requirements,
2 after full recoupment of their investment.
3 10190 Is this something that you would
4 propose as possible?
5 10191 MR. LINK: I am not sure that I would
6 like to fix the parameters. But I think when that
7 proposal was made, it reflects pretty well what
8 Telefilm's position is when they are investing.
9 10192 It could be that 50 percent of the
10 profit goes to talent and 50 percent goes to investors.
11 Maybe that is what she was referring to.
12 10193 I don't know in what context she made
13 that.
14 10194 There seems to be a traditional
15 split, either 50/50 or 60/40 in favour of either side.
16 It all depends on the project; it all depends on the
17 financial involvement, the risk. But that should be
18 negotiated freely, I would think -- unless she had
19 experiences where she felt the demands put on them were
20 too strong, and they wanted a ceiling rather than a --
21 10195 I am not sure.
22 10196 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: I am not
23 sure. Basically, this formula is mentioned in the
24 context that several people here have talked about the
25 possibility of equity investment but certain safeguards
StenoTran
2188
1 coming into play or certain formulae.
2 10197 For example, such investment be
3 negotiated and be entirely separate from licence fee
4 requirements.
5 10198 Are you along the same --
6 10199 MR. LINK: They definitely should be
7 separate and distinct from -- and licence fees should
8 reflect reality. We could give you some examples of
9 the distortion of licence fees in our country versus
10 some other situations, where the licence fees are so
11 low in Canada compared to the cost of the film that it
12 is really out of whack.
13 10200 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Did you
14 want to suggest to us any other ways? You talked about
15 the Channel 4 model; you talked about Canal Plus and
16 its history and features; the German situation.
17 10201 Do you think any of those models will
18 work for Canada?
19 10202 MR. LINK: I think that we have --
20 and I am perhaps going to answer to you in a roundabout
21 way.
22 10203 We have a lot of talent here. We
23 have a lot of possibilities. We have established
24 ourselves in our home market and abroad -- sometimes
25 better abroad than even here.
StenoTran
2189
1 10204 If the broadcasters would play a more
2 active role, whether that would be un incitatif or
3 coercion -- if you need to use that term -- we would
4 gain a lot by that.
5 10205 When a picture is finished and is
6 available and it is not shown, it is a crime. It is a
7 crime that the Canadian public cannot see the films at
8 a time when they are watching television.
9 10206 It is no use putting it on at 2
10 o'clock in the morning. It is no good putting it on in
11 the mornings. We have to reach the public. We are
12 going to build on it.
13 10207 Time and again you can see that the
14 Canadian public appreciates its drama, be it the long
15 form, be it the movies of the week. We have talent,
16 but we have to get it on the air.
17 10208 Somehow or other, we have to make the
18 broadcasters who have the means to reach the largest
19 segment of the public at the lowest cost give us this
20 window and get us air time. This is really what we are
21 asking from you: look at how you can get the
22 broadcasters --
23 10209 It might be a quota within a quota.
24 Can you say: "If you are playing say 50 or 75 features
25 a year on your system, would you then play 10 or 15
StenoTran
2190
1 Canadian films."? Something that we would get in front
2 of the public Canadian features.
3 10210 And more and more the more important
4 films we make, I think the Canadian public -- again, it
5 will take some time, but we believe they will respond
6 favourably.
7 10211 We had some great successes in Quebec
8 recently. We had some very good successes in English
9 Canada, as well. It is a matter of entraînement. You
10 have to give the public the taste -- l'appétit vient en
11 mangeant.
12 10212 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: We are
13 here to look at all the options in fact to try to move
14 that dossier forward.
15 10213 As you know, the Commission mandate
16 allows us to take certain steps, and in certain areas
17 it is up to other institutions. But in terms of what
18 we can do, looking forward from here, it is important
19 that you present whatever precise suggestions that you
20 want to make in terms of how that structure should
21 work.
22 10214 One of the other areas you touched on
23 is CBC/Radio-Canada.
24 10215 Est-ce que vous avez d'autres
25 précisions en termes de leur rôle? Je pense que
StenoTran
2191
1 c'était clair que vous voulez qu'ils... il y a plus de
2 films à la télévision de Radio-Canada, il y a plus de
3 promotions. Est-ce qu'il y a un rôle spécifique que
4 vous voulez mentionner?
5 10216 MR. LOEWY: First of all, I just want
6 to add some words to the previous question.
7 10217 We have been discussing for years and
8 years what the role of the Canadian broadcaster should
9 be. I think we have come away empty-handed each time,
10 because the broadcasters always came up with all kinds
11 of excuses, pleading poverty. In the meantime, they
12 are buying up more networks and their profits are
13 really growing.
14 10218 Yet the model in the U.K. and in
15 France is expanding. I think at the last CRTC
16 hearings, Canal Plus was really actively involved in
17 big licence fees and investment in local French films.
18 Today, we have TF-1, France Deux and France Trois who
19 are investing big money, both for licence and
20 investments. The same thing with the BBC and Channel
21 4.
22 10219 Here, we are still at the stage of
23 talking about it.
24 10220 With respect to your question about
25 the CBC, being here since this morning, everybody is
StenoTran
2192
1 finding reasons to attack the poor CBC on all kinds of
2 misdeeds and bad behaviour.
3 10221 Even though the CBC is paying very
4 low licence fees, at least they are buying films --
5 which is more than can be said about any of the private
6 broadcasters.
7 10222 What we would like to see more of is
8 more promotional efforts on their part, which does not
9 cost any money. It is not something where they have to
10 come back to the government and ask for additional
11 funds. They can simply get more involved in the
12 promotion of Canadian films.
13 10223 We have a bit of that in Quebec with
14 some broadcasters, and I think we can expand on that.
15 It would be an invaluable tool to have.
16 10224 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you
17 for that.
18 10225 On the matter of North American
19 rights, we have had suggestions on how to deal with
20 this, ranging from doing nothing, to let the market
21 decide, to taking U.S. services off eligible lists.
22 10226 In fact, I think that is the CFTPA
23 point in their submission.
24 10227 We are of course, as you noted, aware
25 of the history. I was wondering if you had any other
StenoTran
2193
1 comments on that area.
2 10228 MR. PARADIS: I am going to ask Dan
3 Lyon to talk about that.
4 10229 MR. LYON: The thing that is very
5 important for the Commission to note is that it is very
6 difficult for distributors to police the situation
7 where a U.S. service coming into Canada may be
8 broadcasting a program which has already been bought
9 for Canadian broadcast, originating in Canada, by a
10 Canadian distributor.
11 10230 Most of the companies have eagle-eyed
12 people who will scan the guides and hopefully catch a
13 lot of the problems. In some cases, we do get good
14 cooperation.
15 10231 It is a very frustrating situation to
16 imagine that, as bad as it is now, it is only going to
17 get worse with the proliferation of satellite signals
18 and Internet broadcasting, and whatever else is coming
19 down the pike for us.
20 10232 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you.
21 I was going to ask you as a group what you saw
22 vis-à-vis digital carriage and digital technology in
23 the business of features.
24 10233 I have one last question. I can't
25 resist asking it.
StenoTran
2194
1 10234 Another discussion that has been had
2 frequently involves a parallel process to this one; and
3 that is the identifiable Canadian product.
4 10235 In looking at this table and the
5 experience you have had, when you read proposals of
6 what is Canadian, basic Canadian, enhanced basic, it is
7 distinguishable Canadian.
8 10236 To add to our record, what is your
9 definition of a truly Canadian feature film?
10 10237 MR. PARADIS: I think you missed
11 "super Canadian".
12 10238 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Sorry.
13 10239 MR. LOEWY: I believe that a film
14 that is done by Canadians is a Canadian film. It is
15 not necessarily treating a typically Canadian situation
16 that is Canadian. I think it is what we come up with
17 as a story to tell. But of course it should not be
18 something where we are disguising a Canadian city for
19 Washington, or whatever.
20 10240 I think we have to give the freedom
21 to our creators to tackle any subjects that they want.
22 But necessarily it has to have the Canadian elements in
23 there in proportion.
24 10241 One of the biggest things that I had
25 the privilege of participating in was "Meatballs".
StenoTran
2195
1 "Meatballs" was a Canadian story; it was summer camp.
2 Yes, we had Bill Murray, who was an American actor.
3 But it was a Canadian film.
4 10242 I think we have to be open-minded on
5 that. Certainly we should resist the type of disguised
6 foreign productions masquerading as Canadian. But I
7 think Canadians should have the choice of making films
8 that they feel they should bring to the screen.
9 10243 MR. LYON: I believe during this
10 proceeding you did hear a few people speak about
11 official co-productions as well. We would like to see
12 certainly increasing emphasis on those productions as
13 Canadian productions -- which they are.
14 10244 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: When we
15 are told by some that a framework which encourages
16 export of cultural products, including feature films,
17 is contrary to one which would encourage more
18 indigenous Canadian product, how do you respond to
19 that?
20 10245 How do we do both at once?
21 10246 MR. PARADIS: I think you are raising
22 two issues.
23 10247 I sit on the board of the Canadian
24 Television Fund, and I am also taking part in the
25 policy review for the film.
StenoTran
2196
1 10248 In the Television Fund, the way the
2 board is going, the requirements we are going to have
3 for what is Canadian or not Canadian are going to
4 require more criteria of Canada. But that is in
5 television.
6 10249 In television, I think the feeling of
7 the people on the board is that that is what we are in
8 the business of doing: Canadian productions. It does
9 not stop anybody from doing other types of productions.
10 But if they want to have access to public money, they
11 have to do productions that reflect Canada and that are
12 Canadian.
13 10250 For feature film, we are at the point
14 where we are now discussing what the criteria might be.
15 There is an ongoing discussion on what the criteria
16 would be, not necessarily the same as in television.
17 Feature film is not the same as conventional
18 television.
19 10251 So until we know what it is finally
20 going to look like, we don't really have a hard line
21 opinion on it.
22 10252 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: An
23 interesting comment. We are discussing feature films
24 on conventional television, so I would suggest that the
25 two not be kept too far apart.
StenoTran
2197
1 10253 MR. PARADIS: They probably won't be
2 since they both have to report to the same minister.
3 10254 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you,
4 gentlemen.
5 10255 Thank you, Madam Chair.
6 10256 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you,
7 gentlemen.
8 10257 We will now take a 15-minute break
9 and come back at 4:05.
10 10258 Nous reprenderons à quatre heure
11 cinque.
12 --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1550
13 --- Upon resuming at / Reprise à 1606
14 10259 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon.
15 10260 Madam Secretary, would you invite the
16 next participant, please.
17 10261 MS BÉNARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.
18 10262 The next presentation will be by the
19 Directors Guild of Canada. I would invite Mr. King to
20 introduce his colleagues.
21 PRESENTATION / PRÉSENTATION
22 10263 MR. KING: Thank you.
23 10264 Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and
24 members of the Commission.
25 10265 My name is Allan King and I am
StenoTran
2198
1 President of the Directors Guild of Canada. With me is
2 Pamela Brand, our National Executive Director, and
3 Peter Grant, our regulatory counsel.
4 10266 As a labour organization representing
5 key creative and logistical personnel in the film and
6 television industries in Canada, the Directors Guild
7 has a very special interest in these hearings.
8 10267 The issues being addressed by the
9 Commission deal with the fundamental structure of the
10 television industry in Canada. In our written
11 submission, we have chosen to focus on the lack of
12 sufficient financial and scheduling support give to
13 Canadian entertainment programs by Canada's private
14 English language broadcasters.
15 10268 Over the last decade, the Commission
16 has properly focused on the issue of the
17 under-represented programming, and why it is still a
18 scarce commodity on our TV screens, compared with the
19 dominance of U.S. drama in prime time.
20 10269 The Commission has also developed a
21 number of expenditure and scheduling rules to address
22 this issue. We applaud the Commission for these steps
23 and for focusing your attention on the issue in this
24 hearing.
25 10270 We are not here to recommend a
StenoTran
2199
1 wholesale change in regulatory approach. Our
2 suggestion is that you work with the tools you already
3 have, the expenditure and scheduling rules, and make
4 them more effective by focusing them on the central
5 issue, the need for more first-run Canadian
6 entertainment programs in prime time.
7 10271 In particular the Directors Guild has
8 proposed the adoption of what we call the "7 & 7 from 7
9 to 11 solution". Allow me to take a minute to describe
10 the proposal for you. This approach would establish a
11 regulatory benchmark for private television stations of
12 spending a minimum of 7 per cent of broadcast revenues
13 on Canadian entertainment programming per year and
14 airing a minimum of seven hours of first-run Canadian
15 entertainment programming from the hours of 7:00 to
16 11:00 p.m. each week.
17 10272 In our submission to the Commission
18 last year on the establishment of new networks, we
19 urged that the CRTC set a benchmark for private TV
20 expenditures on Canadian entertainment programs of 7
21 per cent of gross advertising revenues. In our written
22 submission for these hearings, we have taken our
23 suggestion a step further by adding a scheduling
24 component to it.
25 10273 When the CAB appeared before you,
StenoTran
2200
1 they criticized our proposal, arguing that Canadian
2 drama loses money and they should be given more
3 incentives to schedule it.
4 10274 But broadcasting in Canada is not
5 just a business that anyone can enter. Broadcasting is
6 a privilege and a valuable franchise with all kinds of
7 protections, including barriers to entry, the benefits
8 of the simultaneous substitution rule and the like.
9 And with that franchise comes an obligation to do
10 certain things, even if those particular projects lose
11 money on an individual basis.
12 10275 The CAB talked about doing more for
13 Canadian entertainment programming to increase its
14 viewership, but they didn't talk about spending more
15 money on it, which is surely the real test of
16 commitment.
17 10276 The licence fees paid by Canada's
18 private broadcasters as a percentage of the budget for
19 Canadian drama are but a fraction of what private
20 broadcasters in other countries pay for their
21 indigenous drama. We are the only country in the world
22 which pays higher licence fees for U.S. drama than for
23 its own drama.
24 10277 The reason why a tightened
25 expenditure rule is required is very simply because it
StenoTran
2201
1 is obvious that in the absence of such a rule,
2 broadcasters will reduce rather than increase their
3 real expenditures on Canadian drama.
4 10278 Yesterday the CAB released a study
5 purporting to show that the Directors Guild proposal
6 would result in a net loss to English language
7 broadcasters of $50 million or more per year.
8 10279 We have already identified a number
9 of major flaws in the CAB study and we consider it
10 wildly exaggerated and based upon faulty assumptions.
11 It also fails to note that English language
12 broadcasters actually increased their profits by $38
13 million in 1997 while reducing their 7, 8 and 9
14 Canadian expenditures.
15 10280 We are preparing a detailed report
16 rebutting the CAB study which we will file with you in
17 due course.
18 10281 I will now ask Pamela Brand to
19 address a different issue.
20 10282 MS BRAND: One aspect of the
21 Directors Guild's brief that I would like to speak
22 about specifically concerns the ability of broadcasters
23 to claim the licence fee program top-up moneys coming
24 from the Canadian Television Fund as if they had spent
25 it themselves.
StenoTran
2202
1 10283 On September 17 the Guild published a
2 study of the implications of the CRTC policy allowing
3 the top-up credit. We filed the study with the
4 Commission last week and we have included a copy with
5 our oral presentation today.
6 10284 The study reached some disturbing
7 conclusions. Although in 1996 and 1997 relatively few
8 broadcasters claimed the benefit of the top-up in their
9 financial returns, the increase in the LFP funding will
10 make it possible for private broadcasters to claim
11 millions of dollars of LFP money annually as if they
12 had spent the money themselves.
13 10285 In fact, just by reason of the LFP
14 grants in the year ended August 31, 1998, English
15 language private broadcasters will be able to claim on
16 their future returns up to $24 million in LFP grants as
17 part of their Canadian programming expenditures. This
18 cannot be supported.
19 10286 We urge the Commission to ensure that
20 any solution that it decides to adopt in order to
21 increase the supply of under-represented Canadian
22 programs does not allow private broadcasters to avoid
23 their responsibilities by enabling them to claim LFP
24 top-up money as if they had spent it themselves.
25 10287 MR. KING: Thank you, Pamela.
StenoTran
2203
1 10288 This brings me to another point that
2 I would like to address, namely the issue of
3 broadcaster access to Canada's public production funds.
4 In our written submission to you, we urged that the
5 Commission maintain restrictions on broadcasters'
6 ability to access public funding.
7 10289 The emergence of a strong and
8 globally competitive independent production sector is
9 one of Canada's most notable success stories. Much of
10 it is due to the structural support provided by the
11 Commission and by Telefilm Canada. The edifice is a
12 remarkable tribute to intelligent government policy.
13 It took a generation to build.
14 10290 Permit me a moment of personal
15 reflection on that earlier time. Having spent a decade
16 building a successful independent documentary film
17 studio in London in the sixties, I returned to home to
18 Canada in its centennial year, 1967, hoping to do the
19 same here.
20 10291 It was a desert here then for
21 Canadian independent producers. The CBC did everything
22 in-house and the very few Canadian entertainment
23 programs found on the schedules of private broadcasters
24 were also self-produced. It was an environment that
25 stifled diversity.
StenoTran
2204
1 10292 We have come a long way from that
2 time. We now expect private broadcasters to support
3 independent production of Canadian entertainment
4 programs and we would be remiss if we did not single
5 out a few broadcasters to congratulate them for their
6 recent initiatives.
7 10293 The Guild is very supportive of the
8 model being used by the Craigs in Alberta to help
9 finance long-form Canadian drama with expenditures far
10 in excess of our proposed 7 per cent rule.
11 10294 The Guild also wants to commend
12 CTV/Baton for its recent initiatives in increasing its
13 quantity of distinctive Canadian drama in prime time.
14 We are eager to see Mr. Fecan's vision come to life on
15 the CTRV schedule and we look forward to its
16 elaboration at the CTV renewal hearing next year.
17 10295 In sum, the Directors Guild urges the
18 Commission to continue its good work in building the
19 remarkably diverse structure that is the Canadian
20 broadcasting system. We respectfully urge you to move
21 forward to levels of Canadian content comparable to
22 jurisdictions such as Britain, France and Germany.
23 10296 To this end, we urge the adoption of
24 a benchmark similar to the "7 & 7 from 7 to 11"
25 solution that we have proposed. This will ensure that
StenoTran
2205
1 our television system offers Canadians the amount of
2 distinctive Canadian entertainment programming that our
3 broadcasting system needs and deserves.
4 10297 Thank you. That concludes our
5 presentation.
6 10298 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Brand,
7 Mr. King.
8 10299 Commissioner McKendry.
9 10300 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you,
10 Madam Chair.
11 10301 Let me begin by talking to you about
12 your September 17 study on the CTCPF Licence Fee
13 Program and Canadian Program Expenditure Commitments.
14 Let me note that in your accompanying press release for
15 that, and as an aside, let me say I am rather taken in
16 this hearing with the number of press releases that are
17 being issued by yourselves and by the CAB. It seems
18 that there are almost two hearings going on, the one we
19 are doing in this room and the one that is going on in
20 the media.
21 10302 I noticed that there was an article
22 this morning in the Globe and Mail where CAB has filed
23 more data. I want to come back to this in a few
24 minutes, although sometimes when I read the press
25 clippings and I see the word tonnage, I'm not sure
StenoTran
2206
1 whether we are talking about Canadian content or a
2 whale hunt.
3 10303 You state in the accompanying press
4 release with your study that our decision, Public
5 Notice 1994-10, to allow private broadcasters to claim
6 a portion of the licence fee contributed by the fund as
7 eligible Canadian program expenditures "undermines the
8 whole integrity of the broadcasting system".
9 10304 It's a pretty serious allegation so I
10 want to make sure that I understand how you came to
11 your conclusions.
12 10305 Let me begin by turning you to page 5
13 of the study. There you state about the third
14 paragraph, half way through the third paragraph. Let
15 me quote:
16 "Projects can now quality for
17 support even when broadcasters
18 contribute licence fees that are
19 as little as 15% of the program
20 budget. However, the licence
21 fee top-up can now increase this
22 to as much as 45% of the
23 budget."
24 10306 How did you derive the figure of 48
25 per cent?
StenoTran
2207
1 10307 MS BRAND: Actually all of these
2 figures were derived from the CRTC studies which is
3 included with the package, but the figure 45 per cent,
4 I'm going to let Peter Grant answer that question.
5 10308 MR. GRANT: The 45 per cent is
6 included in the LFP top-up guidelines, Commissioner
7 McKendry. It is the maximum amount of the budget that
8 is available for certain regional productions.
9 10309 For national, non-regional
10 productions though of drama, the maximum top-up would
11 be about 30, 35 per cent of the budget. This is a
12 comment about the bonus that could apply in some cases.
13 10310 I think though that if you take a
14 look at the numbers for the most recent year past,
15 which I think are included in attachment 6, the actual
16 broadcaster cash in all projects from private
17 broadcasters was $26.3 million and that generated
18 licence fee top-up of $24.4 million.
19 10311 The ratio in the last year overall is
20 about one to one, give or take, which again is much
21 more than it was originally envisaged. Originally the
22 bonus would have been 43 per cent. It appears now the
23 bonus in the last year would amount to about 100 per
24 cent.
25 10312 There could be some specific projects
StenoTran
2208
1 in which the bonus could work out to 200 per cent
2 though. They would have to fit within the narrow
3 definitions for those projects in the LFP top-up
4 guidelines.
5 10313 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: How many
6 projects would the 200 per cent number apply to?
7 10314 MR. GRANT: Well, it would be
8 obviously a small number because there have been
9 relatively few regional projects until recently that
10 have even gotten into the LFP. That's a new
11 development.
12 10315 That is the new guidelines. The LFP
13 does allow up to 45 per cent in those projects, so to
14 the extent those increase over time, they will show up
15 more. Right now the most recent year shows that the
16 bonus is about 100 per cent.
17 10316 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Do you have
18 an answer in terms of how many of the projects would be
19 as much as 200 per cent?
20 10317 MR. GRANT: No, I don't have that for
21 the 1998 year. No.
22 10318 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Do you have
23 it for the previous years or was it not applicable in
24 the previous years?
25 10319 MR. GRANT: No. This is a policy
StenoTran
2209
1 that has been changed in the last year.
2 10320 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Perhaps we
3 could just to understand that policy take a look at
4 decision 94-10 which you included as attachment 2 to
5 your study. We could look at the section headed "The
6 Mechanism" which is 2(h).
7 10321 I would like you to relate the 200
8 per cent factor that you now say is part of the fund to
9 what's set out there. What it says there is:
10 "-- under-represented
11 programming must obtain licence
12 fees of not less than 15% of the
13 total budget from Canadian
14 licensees."
15 10322 It goes on:
16 "For the purpose of meeting
17 their required Canadian program
18 expenditures as expressed --"
19 10323 Sorry. Let me just back up one
20 sentence.
21 "The production fund shall
22 provide payments representing
23 30% of the licence fees."
24 10324 How do we get up to 200 per cent by
25 relating what's in this section of the decision to what
StenoTran
2210
1 you just told me.
2 10325 MR. GRANT: Well, you have raised
3 exactly the point, I think, that is made, Commissioner
4 McKendry.
5 10326 If you take a look at those two
6 numbers, and I am focusing particularly on -- take a
7 look at the top line in that paragraph which says the
8 licence fee shall be not less than 35 per cent. Then
9 it says:
10 "The production fund shall
11 provide payments representing
12 30% of licence fees."
13 10327 Remember, the 30 is of the 35.
14 That's 10.5. So the practical result back in 1994, and
15 this was all understood, was that a broadcaster would
16 actually put 24.5 per cent of his real cash and the
17 extra 10.5 would bring the matter up to 35 per cent and
18 that works out because 30 per cent of the 35 per cent
19 would be treated as if he had spent it himself.
20 10328 That was the understanding, I think,
21 that the Commission had as to how it would work in
22 1994. A year and a half later the guidelines for the
23 fund were handed over to the Heritage Department and in
24 fact the Heritage Department added $50 million to the
25 budget for LFP.
StenoTran
2211
1 10329 Those rules became changed. It no
2 longer was required to have 24.5 per cent. It steadily
3 reduced to 20 and, in fact, if you take a look at the
4 average contribution of broadcasters to LFP projects,
5 as disclosed in the LFP document in attachment 6, it's
6 barely 15 per cent.
7 10330 The expectation in 1994, it seems to
8 me, has been not met. The broadcasters are not putting
9 in 24.5. They are now putting in about 15. In certain
10 projects they could actually put in less and they are
11 getting more top-up benefit than was initially
12 envisaged. It was originally thought that the top-up
13 would take them from 24.5 up to 35. That's a 43 per
14 cent bonus.
15 10331 You now see in the 1998 numbers that
16 they are getting closer to a 100 per cent bonus. It's
17 a combination of those two features that have all
18 happened since 1994, and I have to say were nothing to
19 do with the Commission. This was just the rules being
20 changed and more money being put in and so forth.
21 10332 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Now, you say
22 this has nothing to do with the Commission. Perhaps
23 you can help me here because I look at the preamble to
24 decision 94-10, in the fourth paragraph, and I will
25 quote:
StenoTran
2212
1 "Although the LFP Guidelines are
2 now administered by the CTCPF,
3 the Commission continues to have
4 exclusive jurisdiction over the
5 funding mechanism, including the
6 obligation of distribution
7 undertakings to contribute to
8 the fund, and the extent to
9 which private broadcasters can
10 claim LFP contributions as
11 eligible 'Canadian expenditures'
12 under their licence conditions."
13 10333 MR. GRANT: That's right.
14 10334 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Are you
15 telling me that the fund has the power to make its own
16 rules and guidelines and if we happen to notice that
17 one of those rules or guidelines isn't consistent with
18 what we would like to have done, we have the
19 jurisdiction to change it.
20 10335 Is that what's happening?
21 10336 MR. GRANT: Yes. I mean the way a
22 broadcaster would read down at "The Mechanism" section,
23 they would look at that third paragraph. It just
24 says|:
25 "-- for the purpose of meeting
StenoTran
2213
1 their ... program expenditures
2 ... private broadcasters will be
3 permitted to claim full amount
4 of the licence fee, including
5 that portion contributed by the
6 fund --"
7 10337 They will say well, then, the
8 Commission didn't put any rules there. The rules as to
9 how much we put in and what the bonus is, that's now up
10 to Heritage. They have changed since 1994.
11 1625
12 10338 Now, if you were to, as a Commission,
13 say -- just announce as a policy announcement that our
14 position is that the top-up was never intended to be
15 more than 43 per cent -- that was the original idea --
16 and clarified that, that would certainly go a long way
17 to eliminating the problem. It wouldn't go the full
18 way. You still have this much larger amount of money
19 because they are including not just the amount of money
20 that would have been in the Production Fund by virtue
21 of cable contributions, which again was all that was
22 thought of in 1994, but they are also getting credit
23 for the added money coming from Heritage, which was not
24 in the Fund in 1994.
25 10339 So, as a lawyer, I would take the
StenoTran
2214
1 view that this is a matter that the left hand,
2 obviously, should know what the right hand is doing,
3 but it is within the power of the Commission to address
4 this by clarifying exactly what they intended.
5 10340 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: And the Fund
6 does not need our permission or approval to make the
7 changes that you have just described in light of the
8 mandate that's given to us here to have jurisdiction
9 over these matters?
10 10341 MR. GRANT: Yes. Now, my
11 understanding is that in fact the Commission addressed
12 a letter to the Fund about this issue a year or so ago
13 asking whether they had a position -- with all these
14 changes, whether there would be a need to revisit this
15 policy and this is mentioned in the backgrounder issued
16 by the Guild. The Fund set up a subcommittee to review
17 it, but deadlocked on the matter and was not able to
18 come up with a resolution or a recommendation to the
19 Commission. So, I take it from that that this is
20 really now fully in the hands of the Commission to deal
21 with.
22 10342 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: And just to
23 summarize this point, we have rules at the Fund that
24 are in conflict with this section of our decision.
25 10343 MR. GRANT: With the expectation,
StenoTran
2215
1 yes, in this decision.
2 10344 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: It's more
3 than an expectation, it's a requirement or a
4 regulation, isn't it?
5 10345 MR. GRANT: It's interesting,
6 actually. This was issued as a policy statement and it
7 was never implemented by way of a reference in licence
8 conditions or regulations, but the way it has been
9 administered so far has simply been that the Commission
10 has put in a line item in the Annual Report called
11 Cable Production Fund credit. As I understand it, of
12 course, if broadcasters choose to, on their annual
13 return, provide the information as to what their own
14 projects got as licence fee program top-up, that will
15 then be entered into that return and, of course, will
16 then count towards their Canadian program expenditures.
17 10346 Now, there is an interesting
18 question: What year do they get to claim it and who
19 gets to claim it? You will have some broadcasters
20 trigger it, but then resell the project to other
21 broadcasters. So, I don't think that has been
22 determined.
23 10347 The other issue is that it would seem
24 more logical that you would claim it, not at the time
25 that the licence fee top-up money is given to the
StenoTran
2216
1 product but, rather, at the time the actual program, as
2 made, shows up on the schedule, because the Commission
3 have accounting rules. They are in Public Notice
4 1993-93 that say you can only account for your
5 expenditures on licence fees for drama programs at the
6 time they actually are amortized over the broadcast
7 schedule. So, you can't count them earlier, you have
8 to count them in the year that the broadcast is run.
9 10348 Most of these programs that we are
10 talking about are only starting to run now. In fact
11 the ones that were financed from the 1998 money we are
12 talking about, the $24 million, some of those may not
13 even run and start to be showing up in returns until
14 the fiscal year 1999-2000.
15 10349 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I want to ask
16 you about a follow-up on that, but again let me be
17 clear that I understand this. The fund is doing
18 something that the Commission didn't intend it to do by
19 virtue or based on decision 1994-10?
20 10350 MR. GRANT: Well, the Commission
21 basically delegated the decision-making on the ratios
22 of licence fees and so forth for various projects to
23 the Fund. I don't know that the Commission has
24 disapproved it or approved it. It hardly matters. The
25 issue here is: How do you want to handle it for the
StenoTran
2217
1 purposes of your internal accounting? How do
2 broadcasters get a claim? That's uniquely a CRTC
3 issue.
4 10351 The Fund doesn't have jurisdiction
5 over how you decide how a broadcaster will get credit.
6 So, you could very well find no problem with how the
7 Fund is proceeding, but still say, in terms of giving
8 credit to a broadcaster for this top-up, it should work
9 within these rules back in 1994 or, as the Guild is
10 suggesting, frankly, over time remove them.
11 10352 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: With respect
12 to the 45 per cent number that was on page 5 that
13 started off this discussion, when I first looked at it,
14 I thought there was a possibility you had gone to
15 subsection (h) and added together the 15 per cent
16 that's in there with the 30 per cent. So, that is not
17 the case. That's what you are telling me. You have
18 derived the 45 per cent number by looking at the actual
19 expenditures?
20 10353 MR. GRANT: No, actually looking at
21 the LFP top-up and guidelines, as issued by the CTF,
22 which say that in certain projects they will permit a
23 15 per cent trigger to generate a top-up of another 30
24 per cent.
25 10354 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: So, the
StenoTran
2218
1 number of $24 million, as I recall -- I think it's
2 $24.2 million --
3 10355 MR. GRANT: Yes.
4 10356 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: -- that is a
5 calculation that flows from looking at the rules at the
6 Fund, as opposed to what actually happened?
7 10357 MR. GRANT: That's right. No. No,
8 the $24 million is what actually happened last year.
9 Those are the reported numbers of licence fee top-up
10 credits for projects that were licensed by
11 English-language Canadian private broadcasters.
12 10358 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: And the 45
13 per cent is what's possible under the rules?
14 10359 MR. GRANT: Yes.
15 10360 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Good.
16 10361 You mentioned that some of this money
17 has not been claimed. My question is: Why was it left
18 on the table?
19 10362 MR. GRANT: I think the answer is a
20 number of answers. The key one, I think, is that it
21 would normally be claimed at the time that the program
22 is broadcast. So, there is a regulatory lag then of a
23 year or two because the programs are financed and the
24 commitment letter is issued, but a project may not get
25 concluded and then be put on the air for a year or so.
StenoTran
2219
1 That's one explanation.
2 10363 Another explanation, I am sure, is
3 that some broadcasters may not have felt it necessary
4 to do it, they didn't feel -- or their accounting
5 department hadn't picked up on it. There is a variety
6 of possible reasons. I must say I don't see anything
7 turns on that because there is nothing to stop them
8 from going back and restating those returns or picking
9 them up in the future years when the programs are
10 broadcast.
11 10364 The key, of course, moment for a
12 broadcaster to concern himself with this is actually at
13 the renewal time because at that point the Commission
14 will ask on the renewal form, "Have you complied with
15 all your licence conditions", and one of the licence
16 conditions that's looked at is the Canadian program
17 expenditures rule. It would be possible then for a
18 broadcaster to say, "Well, I know you might think in my
19 returns that I didn't quite qualify, but now I am
20 putting in all my LFP top-up and you will see I very
21 easily qualify."
22 10365 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: You mentioned
23 this earlier, but just clarify for this for me. What
24 is the basis for allowing a retroactive claim to be
25 made?
StenoTran
2220
1 10366 MR. GRANT: Retroactive or -- I'm
2 sorry?
3 10367 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Well,
4 refiling one's form or claim.
5 10368 MR. GRANT: Just basically refiling
6 to -- I suppose you would file it just to correct what
7 you would say was an error in your return. It would
8 probably then show that you over-spent on Canadian
9 programming that year. Then you would carry that
10 forward to average out for the licence renewal period.
11 10369 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: So that
12 broadcasters who are paying careful attention to this
13 hearing will be examining their returns and considering
14 whether or not they should correct them, I assume.
15 10370 Let me leave the study now then and
16 ask you some other questions.
17 10371 Actually, let me ask you one more
18 question about it before I do that. In Decision
19 1994-10 we were, it struck me when I read it, fairly
20 clear that the policy set out or the mechanism set out
21 in subsection (h) had -- we were quite clear about what
22 we were trying to do. We were trying to make it
23 possible to do more programming in the
24 under-represented areas. There was an explicit policy
25 objective attached to it. I take it it's your view
StenoTran
2221
1 that this mechanism is no longer appropriate for
2 achieving that policy objective that we set out in
3 1994-10.
4 10372 MR. GRANT: I think that's true and I
5 guess there is two points to be made about that. One
6 is that if you examine the applications that were filed
7 for new licence applications in the markets where the
8 Commission issued new licences in the last few years,
9 which is to say Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and
10 Montreal, the financial projections filed by all of the
11 applicants failed to make any account of this
12 particular mechanism. You can tell whether they would
13 have because it would have dropped to the bottom line
14 as a credit against -- a revenue item coming, as it
15 were, a fictional revenue item, but adjusting their
16 Canadian programming.
17 10373 So, their projected profits and
18 losses, as presented to the Commission, did not require
19 any incentive from this program. So, for it now to be
20 claimed for those licensees, it seems to me, is
21 something of a windfall for them. Now, there might be
22 a valid reason to allow them to have a windfall if
23 there is some real new things put on the table, but
24 most of the new licensees made very important
25 commitments to Canadian content. They had budgeted for
StenoTran
2222
1 them, they have allowed themselves a reasonable profit.
2 It seems to me in those situations it's hard to argue
3 why there should be this credit.
4 10374 For existing stations again, those
5 that were renewed recently, at least those renewal
6 applications I have looked at, again did not include
7 any reference to the LFP top-up. They just projected
8 their revenues and expenses in the normal way and
9 showed a reasonable profit line. So, again that's why
10 it looks like this top-up would be really a windfall.
11 10375 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I will now
12 leave that area.
13 10376 Let me ask you a question. I think I
14 mentioned earlier the war of press releases here that
15 is going on and one of the early salvos was a media
16 release from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters
17 on September the 17th. They took you to task or they
18 took the Guild to task in it. They said that you, and
19 I quote, "called for increased regulatory burden on
20 broadcasters". They went on to suggest that you had
21 taken the wrong focus stating, "We should focus on
22 policies that will ensure results, more viewers
23 choosing to watch quality programs." Do you agree that
24 your recommendations are contrary to the concept of
25 more viewers watching quality Canadian programs?
StenoTran
2223
1 10377 MR. KING: That our proposals...?
2 10378 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Are contrary
3 to the idea of more Canadians watching quality Canadian
4 programs. How do you relate your proposals to
5 Canadians watching quality Canadian programs?
6 10379 MR. KING: Fundamentally, the real
7 need is for more money to be spent on Canadian
8 programs, particularly drama. If you are trying to
9 attract an audience, you need the best production value
10 as possible, the best quality of work, and that costs
11 money. We are competing against the best-funded drama
12 in the world coming from the States, which has a market
13 ten times ours. Therefore, if you are going to attract
14 audiences, you must spend money in order to put values
15 on the screen. There is your Crop Study, for example,
16 which suggests that the edge that audiences seem to
17 feel on American programs are particularly around this
18 area. So, that's a major thing that has to be dealt
19 with.
20 10380 Furthermore, if there is not space on
21 the screen, if there is not time on the screen, it's
22 very, very difficult for audiences to get to the
23 Canadian programs. At the moment, we are at the level
24 of three, three and a half hours of Canadian
25 entertainment in prime time a week. That's on the
StenoTran
2224
1 order of 10 or 15 per cent of the schedule. We are
2 suggesting that it would be reasonable to have
3 something on the order of an hour a night. That would
4 be a quarter of the schedule for Canadian programming,
5 but it would have to be at a quality that will attract
6 audiences.
7 10381 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: That brings
8 us to today's press article on the subject in the Globe
9 and Mail where it says, "CAB chides proposals made to
10 the CRTC". You mentioned more money. According to
11 this article, CAB now has a study from
12 PricewaterhouseCoopers that shows if your suggestions
13 are implemented, they won't have any money left or they
14 won't have any profits left.
15 10382 The article sets out two reasons for
16 this: one, they can't get as much for a commercial or
17 an advertisement for a Canadian program as they can for
18 an American program and, secondly, Canadian
19 programming, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers, costs
20 a lot more to make than American programming. So, if
21 you get your way, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers
22 and the CAB, that's it, they don't have an profits
23 left. Have you had an opportunity to look at the
24 PricewaterhouseCoopers study?
25 10383 MR. KING: Yes, we have and one thing
StenoTran
2225
1 we have concluded is it will take a good deal of time
2 and careful examination to explore all the implications
3 proposed or suggested in that and others following from
4 it. We do find a number of erroneous assumptions in it
5 that exaggerate the results considerably. We would
6 argue with a number of things. Well-made Canadian
7 programs, particularly distinctively Canadian programs
8 are in fact drawing very high advertising revenues.
9 "Due South", for example, has a very, very strong pull
10 for audiences.
11 10384 The advertising sold in advance on a
12 program like "Power Play" will show a profit for the
13 broadcaster. I think it's worthwhile for us to do and
14 we would like to do a very careful examination of the
15 suggestions and particularly of the costing of what we
16 are proposing and we would like to undertake that.
17 10385 I would like to invite Peter Grant to
18 expand on that a little.
19 10386 MR. GRANT: The Directors Guild was
20 just given a fax of that study late yesterday
21 afternoon, Commissioner McKendry --
22 10387 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: You are well
23 ahead of us.
24 10388 MR. GRANT: -- so it would take some
25 time to analyze it, but a few points do jump out that
StenoTran
2226
1 are quite flawed. The basic study assumes that
2 essentially two hours of U.S. prime time drama will be
3 displaced and replaced then by two new hours of
4 Canadian.
5 10389 Of course, what that fails to take
6 into account is that it is quite logical that it will
7 be Canadian reruns of 7, 8 and 9 that will end up being
8 displaced, not U.S. programs, because many of the
9 stations that would be affected by the Directors Guild
10 proposal are already required by the Commission to
11 offer six hours of 7, 8 and 9 this year, rising to
12 seven in a year or two.
13 10390 So, there will be seven hours over
14 the evening hours of 7, 8 and 9, but the problem is
15 some of it -- much of it may not be first run. So,
16 that would be the programming, it seems to us, that
17 would be logically replaced with first run and first
18 run will always get a higher audience than rerun and it
19 won't displace any U.S. programs because those
20 broadcasters have already made room for Canadian
21 programs 7, 8 and 9 in the evening hours.
22 10391 Now, there will be readjustments of
23 the program schedule required and that's the other
24 point. The study appears to suggest it's a flash cut
25 of impacting as if it occurred today, which means they
StenoTran
2227
1 can't readjust and cut back on already made purchases.
2 There is a number of factors in there that speak to
3 that.
4 10392 The proposal of the Guild is to phase
5 this in over the renewal period. This wouldn't happen
6 for two or three years and, as a result, there is all
7 kinds of ways that a broadcaster could use to readjust
8 the overall spending and, in particular, the overall
9 Canadian spending because right now, average, about 30
10 per cent of the expenditures is on Canadian, but only
11 three and a half per cent is on 7, 8 and 9.
12 10393 Increasing that to seven doesn't mean
13 that your profit drops. It could mean that your
14 expenditures on news and sports and game shows and talk
15 shows would drop by that extra three and a half. I
16 mean that's a factor that's not factored in.
17 10394 Then, finally -- and this I am
18 surprised at because it was very much the Directors
19 Guild idea to try and make this work for the system --
20 the Directors Guild proposal specifically says that for
21 any additional hours of distinctive drama put in prime
22 time, as proposed, they would be open to a scheduling
23 concession in day part where you would allow more U.S.
24 programming in day part, say a stripped half hour, at a
25 time of the day when less people are watching
StenoTran
2228
1 concededly, but Canadian stations right now are having
2 to program talk shows and game shows because, in
3 effect, they have a 65 per cent Canadian content rule
4 in day part by the combination of the rules in quotas.
5 1645
6 10395 That would produce immediate revenue
7 because there is a whole line-up of American programs
8 that are available on the market to go in day part, but
9 there is more time for them on broadcasters' schedules.
10 They are now running these inexpensive, but very poorly
11 performing Canadian programs because they have to fill
12 the quota in day part.
13 10396 Well, if the incentive was, which the
14 CAB itself has proposed and the Directors Guild is
15 supporting in part, that you could for every additional
16 hour of Canadian distinctive drama put in the heart of
17 prime, you are allowed a little bit of leeway in the
18 day part. Again, that factor would need to be taken
19 into account and it was not in this study.
20 10397 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you
21 very much.
22 10398 I want to talk to you now about some
23 of the specifics of your particular recommendations,
24 but on my way there let me just ask you a question
25 about a matter that twigged my interest when I was
StenoTran
2229
1 reading your written submission on page 21. I take it
2 you give substantial weight to the success of Australia
3 and the U.K. in producing top rated domestic programs.
4 10399 I stopped and I thought about that
5 for a minute and let me put it to you that this could
6 be an apples and oranges comparison. I do have some
7 numbers, but I won't give them to you unless you want
8 me to.
9 10400 It just strikes me that in Australia
10 cable penetration is extremely low. In Britain it is
11 low and, in fact, cable is a relatively new phenomena
12 in Australia. There is no over-the-air spillover from
13 the United States into Australia or the U.K.
14 10401 So that if we had a similar situation
15 here in Canada, where there was very low cable
16 penetration and somehow there was an electronic shield
17 at our border that kept out the spillover, we would
18 probably be more likely to be in a similar situation to
19 Australia and the U.K. So, let me put it to you that
20 it may be an apples and oranges comparison. Do you
21 have any comments on that?
22 10402 MR. KING: I think there is a very
23 clear advantage to having a much bigger preponderance
24 of your own shows and your own networks in your country
25 and to have that kind of a shield. It means your
StenoTran
2230
1 audience has grown up with a taste for its own
2 material, it treasures its own actors and knows them
3 well and they become characters in the life of the
4 country. I think it's an advantage as big as the
5 language barrier.
6 10403 But we have to take account of that
7 in establishing our own cultural sovereignty, which is
8 why indeed we are making the proposals we are making.
9 Even then the climate here has been such that the
10 amount of time that we are giving on our schedules to
11 Canadian entertainment and the amount of money that we
12 are paying for it to our producers by way of licence
13 fees and other income is dramatically lower than it is
14 in the other jurisdictions. So, their situation is a
15 much easier one than ours and we have considerable
16 disadvantages coming out of it and they are still a
17 long way behind in supplying quality programs to our
18 audience.
19 10404 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Let me now
20 ask you a few questions about your "7 & 7 from 7 to 11"
21 proposal. I take it you probably resisted the
22 temptation to call it the 7/11 proposal, which was the
23 first thing that entered my mind when I read it.
24 10405 MR. KING: It may have played a part
25 in the creative notion.
StenoTran
2231
1 10406 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Let's talk
2 first about the seven hour component. How did you get
3 to seven hours?
4 10407 MR. KING: It seems to me reasonable
5 to expect an hour a night of Canadian entertainment
6 programming. Seven hours a week is, I would have
7 thought, a minimum. We haven't got it yet, but unless
8 you have a sufficient amount of programming available
9 to an audience it doesn't develop a taste for it. It
10 doesn't begin to know it is that kind of quality of
11 program. You need to have reasonable space on the
12 shelf, on the screen, in the library for the material.
13 So that's the primary reason for it. It raises the
14 level from 10 or 15 per cent to 25 per cent a night and
15 for the week.
16 10408 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Do I take it
17 from your oral comments, if I have recalled them
18 correctly, that you feel this is within the realm of
19 doability because the Craigs and Batons and CTV are
20 there or nearly there. Is that correct?
21 10409 MR. KING: I think it is. We have no
22 wish to drive the private broadcasters into bankruptcy.
23 We welcome their profits. We congratulate them on
24 them. What seems to us important is that they do their
25 share in earning the franchise that they are given and
StenoTran
2232
1 that share is to spend an amount of money, for example,
2 comparable to that spent in other countries.
3 10410 We think that they can afford it. We
4 think that it's a doable thing. We will do some
5 further work exploring possibilities as to how that may
6 play out. We think they undercut or underplay as they
7 have for a long time what they can make from Canadian
8 programs, particularly distinctive Canadian programming
9 and I think the record shows that the ratings for such
10 programs have improved. They are, for example, as I
11 understand it, markedly better than, for example,
12 Canadian industrial programs with a much lower point
13 count, 6 or 8 point programs.
14 10411 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: The 7 per
15 cent revenue contribution -- first of all, let me ask
16 you a point about something you just said. You said
17 you have to do some or you will be doing some further
18 work. Will that be work that will become part of the
19 record of this proceeding and your final comments on
20 the proceeding? Is that what you are suggesting?
21 10412 MR. KING: Yes, indeed, and we don't
22 propose to release it through the press.
23 10413 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you
24 very much because we would like to be able to have a
25 look at it.
StenoTran
2233
1 10414 The 7 per cent revenue contribution
2 required for those seven hours. Again, where did the 7
3 per cent come from? Is there any study or analysis
4 underlying the 7 per cent or is it again in the realm
5 of it seems reasonable under the circumstances?
6 10415 MR. KING: It seems to us it is
7 reasonable. It seems to us that rather than declining,
8 the percentage of money going from the broadcasters
9 should be rising rather than declining, profits have
10 been continuing to increase and for the private
11 broadcasters their market capitalization has doubled.
12 So, it would seem that it is not just the Directors
13 Guild or the Producers Association which thinks that
14 the prospects of the broadcasters are profitable and
15 exciting. The market says so as well.
16 10416 As to the exact number, seven, it
17 seems a useful number to work at and thus chosen.
18 10417 Did you have anything further to add
19 on that, Peter?
20 10418 MR. GRANT: There are some
21 broadcasters that have promised more than seven in
22 English Canada. Some broadcasters, while not at seven,
23 are getting close to it.
24 10419 So, it is an issue in which each
25 broadcaster will have a different take on it and some
StenoTran
2234
1 will be much farther behind than others, which makes
2 it, I suppose, more difficult to apply and again I
3 would emphasize that the Directors Guild proposal is
4 for a bench mark, which means that it isn't an
5 automatic regulation. It is applied on a case-by-case
6 basis and you would allow individual broadcasters to
7 argue for in their own circumstances flexibility or
8 they would be higher on one, lower on the other for a
9 time, or they would move in transition.
10 10420 But the approach is to have this as a
11 principal bench mark that would essentially apply to
12 the private broadcast sector and set out a goal that
13 the Commission will look to in renewal hearings to seek
14 to achieve.
15 10421 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: I expect or
16 suspect that the CAB would say, "Well, this is the old
17 tonnage solution again. You have got to be thinking
18 viewers." Where do viewers come into this? How do you
19 factor viewers into what you are talking about here, or
20 viewership I guess to use the CAB expression?
21 10422 MR. KING: I don't know that I have
22 ever met a film or television maker who doesn't want
23 the largest and doesn't expect the largest possible
24 audience. It is the objective of all of us.
25 10423 I think we also realize that while
StenoTran
2235
1 money isn't the only answer to programming, it is very,
2 very difficult to attract an audience with poor
3 quality, underfunded work.
4 10424 We have the difficulty, for example,
5 in the feature film industry where we make feature
6 films very often for less money than many people make
7 movies of the week. We call them feature films. We
8 send them to the theatre. They are shot in less time
9 than a movie of the week and we are surprised that they
10 have sometimes a hard time drawing audiences.
11 10425 Very clearly, the experience through
12 the industry is that if you spend money you have at
13 least the basic condition of drawing an audience. You
14 can't buy an audience. It is absolutely impossible to
15 buy an audience, but you have to spend money to make an
16 attractive product.
17 10426 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: You may have
18 answered my next question in your reference to the
19 bench mark, but let me clarify this. I take it from
20 your recommendations that with respect to entertainment
21 programs that they are addressed to every English
22 language private conventional TV station regardless of
23 size. The CFTPA, for example, I think applied it to
24 stations with revenues in excess of $10 million, but
25 perhaps you have answered the question I was going to
StenoTran
2236
1 pose as to is that fair or does that create a problem
2 by applying it universally to all stations.
3 10427 I think you told me earlier that this
4 is a bench mark and you would look at each case on a
5 separate basis.
6 10428 MR. KING: Yes. I think the needs
7 and the audience for different stations, different
8 station groups vary. To dogmatically push people in a
9 direction they aren't designed to go would be foolish.
10 So, indeed allowance can be made and special variances
11 can be made for particular circumstances. It is a
12 guideline. It is a bench mark.
13 10429 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: And this
14 would apply to the 7 per cent expenditures of previous
15 years' revenues and for some stations this would be a
16 big, big jump and you are prepared to look at the jump
17 in terms of phasing it in, I take it?
18 10430 MR. KING: As was mentioned earlier,
19 it will take time in any event to phase in, to play
20 in -- yes, to impose it overnight would be a disaster.
21 It has to be done bit by bit as people can work through
22 the experience as the renewals come up and so on.
23 10431 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Broadcasters
24 can make equity investments in programs produced by the
25 independent sector, but they can only claim the losses
StenoTran
2237
1 on these investments to account as eligible
2 expenditures. As a measure to encourage equity
3 investment in Canadian production, the CAB has proposed
4 that any investment in a Canadian program count as an
5 eligible expense. You seem to be against this
6 proposal. Could you elaborate on why such a proposal
7 wouldn't be beneficial to the system?
8 10432 MR. KING: I am not sure that I have
9 understood the question. That equity investments
10 should be opposed?
11 10433 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Broadcasters
12 can make equity investments in programs today, but they
13 can only claim the losses on those investments as
14 eligible expenditures. The CAB is proposing that any
15 investment, that is not just losses, would count as an
16 eligible expense and we take it that you don't agree
17 with that and we are wondering if you could elaborate
18 on that?
19 10434 MR. KING: Peter.
20 10435 MR. GRANT: I guess the issue is that
21 once you allow a broadcaster to treat equity towards
22 their Canadian program expenditure, unless you have
23 some means of monitoring the level of licence fees it
24 will be in its interest to convert a licence fee into
25 equity because equity there is a chance of recoupment.
StenoTran
2238
1 Licence fees to rental payment, it is money out of
2 pocket, it never comes back.
3 10436 You do in fact give them credit for
4 unrecouped equity investments, which is fair ball
5 because in that event it was risky. The risk didn't
6 turn out. They lost the money. You are giving them
7 full credit for that.
8 10437 For them to include account for
9 equity when it is recouped, I think in terms of how to
10 police it and it is so difficult to figure out whether
11 the equity is at a fair market level. For example,
12 some equity is backed by back-up revenue guarantees or
13 priority recoupment and so it often reduces the real
14 risk of the equity and it becomes almost a loan.
15 10438 Again, you don't give credits for
16 loans unless they are unrecouped. So, I can understand
17 why broadcasters would love to have this as a potential
18 benefit because they get credited for money that they
19 never really had to spend or they spent quickly and got
20 back quickly.
21 10439 I think it is very important if the
22 Commission wants integrity in the process to make sure
23 what they are measuring is money that went out and
24 didn't come back, so you don't have double counting of
25 it and so forth.
StenoTran
2239
1 10440 COMMISSIONER McKENDRY: Thank you
2 very much for answering my questions. Those are the
3 questions I have for you.
4 10441 Thank you, Madam Chair.
5 10442 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner
6 Pennefather.
7 10443 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you,
8 Madam Chair.
9 10444 Good afternoon.
10 10445 A few very quick questions. On page
11 38 we are talking about feature films, a minimum amount
12 on Canadian feature film and a minimum number of
13 Canadian features. Any suggestion there? Is it 7, 7,
14 7? I am exaggerating, but I was wondering, the very
15 top of the page, if you had an amount, a specific
16 amount. What do you mean by minimum amount? Is it
17 part of the 7 and the 7?
18 10446 MR. KING: Yes, it is.
19 10447 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: And within
20 the 7 and 7 is there a suggested proportion for
21 features?
22 10448 MR. KING: As between features and
23 other drama, no, we have not. They are programs --
24 they are station groups, channels that are particularly
25 focused on features. There are others who have no
StenoTran
2240
1 interest in it.
2 10449 We do feel that because the feature
3 films so seriously need money that there should be 150
4 per cent allowance for them.
5 10450 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Yes, I
6 have that.
7 10451 In addition, just a quick question
8 and I guess as you say this is the orderly marketplace
9 way of doing things. So, if this is out of order tell
10 me, but just in terms of promoting the feature film in
11 this country is there not a possibility it might be
12 useful to be promoting them on television early in the
13 game to build the following for them, the star system?
14 It is just a thought or a question here.
15 10452 MR. KING: Indeed. There is a great
16 deal of work to be done in greater promotion for
17 feature films. We hope that will be examined and work
18 will come out of it through the Canadian Heritage
19 examination of enhancing the feature film industry.
20 10453 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: So you are
21 flexible on that proposal?
22 10454 MR. KING: Yes.
23 10455 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: On
24 broadcaster access to public funds, you have several
25 alternatives here. On page 43 you speak about limited
StenoTran
2241
1 access permitting a small amount of total spending
2 and/or scheduling commitments regarding Canadian
3 programming to be met by self-produced publicly funded
4 programming.
5 10456 In the next place, however, you say
6 restrictions on broadcaster access should be maintained
7 and enhanced. So I am not sure which you really feel
8 more comfortable with? Is it finding solutions for
9 limited access or enhancing the restriction?
10 10457 MR. KING: We are very strongly
11 opposed to broadcaster access to public funds and
12 getting into the production business. It was the bane
13 of film and television 30 years ago. It took a long
14 time to get the diversity and build up an independent
15 production capacity with the kind of diversity it has
16 now.
17 10458 Broadcasters tend to have a terrific
18 leverage and self-dealing is very, very difficult to
19 monitor to police.
20 10459 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Then the
21 Canadian Media Guild, I don't know if you noticed, made
22 two suggestions with respect to broadcaster access,
23 again looking at this as some possibilities as you were
24 proposing, assuming we might move and allow some
25 flexibility there. The first they have was that
StenoTran
2242
1 broadcasters, private and public, be permitted to
2 access a small percentage of the existing broadcast and
3 cable funds, 10 to 15 per cent, which would be set
4 aside specifically for them.
5 10460 The Canadian Media Guild's second
6 proposal was to establish a dedicated fund through a
7 levy on what broadcasters spend to purchase foreign
8 programming. perhaps 3 per cent of these costs. Can
9 you comment on that?
10 1710
11 10461 MR. KING: Levy on what they are
12 going to invest in production?
13 10462 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Purchase
14 of foreign programming.
15 10463 MR. KING: It would seem to me that
16 would take money away from a place where it should be.
17 It also seems to me that dedicating a chunk to the
18 private broadcasters to become involved in production
19 is rather like letting the camel get its nose in. Once
20 the camel has its nose in, it tends to go all the way.
21 10464 It is very difficult to do it. All
22 the problems of self-dealing are there. It is very,
23 very difficult to do.
24 10465 And I don't see any advantage to it.
25 10466 Of course, any enterprise would like
StenoTran
2243
1 to own everything from the cash register in the ticket
2 window all the way back to owning Eastman Kodak and the
3 emulsion on which the film is photographed. It is the
4 objective of all enterprises to become a monopoly.
5 10467 Generally speaking, the greater the
6 competition, the greater the diversity and the greater
7 the failures drop out and the successes are rewarded.
8 And when they become tired, they can move aside.
9 10468 The monopolistic inclinations of
10 enterprises, it seems to me, have to be watched very
11 carefully if you are going to have a healthy culture, a
12 healthy industry and a healthy system.
13 10469 COMMISSIONER PENNEFATHER: Thank you
14 for those comments.
15 10470 Thank you, Madam Chair.
16 10471 THE CHAIRPERSON: Counsel?
17 10472 MR. BLAIS: Thank you.
18 10473 We were talking yesterday or the day
19 before about parallel universes. I understand that the
20 CAB, in light of the exchanges that are occurring out
21 there somewhere, will be filing its report.
22 10474 Considering the discussion earlier,
23 you are suggesting that you will have a reply or a
24 surreply -- I am not sure at which stage we are at at
25 this point.
StenoTran
2244
1 10475 Would it be possible for you to file
2 that by the 15th of October?
3 10476 MR. GRANT: This is the response to
4 the CAB expert report?
5 10477 MR. BLAIS: That is correct.
6 10478 MR. GRANT: I think that would be
7 possible, yes.
8 10479 MR. BLAIS: I have been using the
9 15th of October throughout as probably a pretty good
10 indication that the Commission would expect -- and
11 perhaps other parties should be aware -- that the
12 factual record would be pretty much finished by then.
13 So everyone has a fair chance to --
14 10480 MR. GRANT: We will meet that
15 deadline.
16 10481 MR. BLAIS: Thank you.
17 10482 Your recommendation no. 7 is:
18 "A relaxation of Canadian
19 scheduling requirements in
20 day-time can be considered for
21 broadcasters who increase the
22 amount of first-run
23 under-represented programming
24 shown in peak hours."
25 10483 Could you be a bit more specific as
StenoTran
2245
1 to what you actually mean? And how different is this
2 from the CAB's proposal, at 250 percent credit?
3 10484 MR. GRANT: The concept is very
4 similar to the CAB proposal. I think the difference
5 would probably simply be in the amount of credit that
6 would be given.
7 10485 My recollection is that the CAB would
8 like that an additional half hour in prime of
9 distinctive Canadian would trigger an ability to run a
10 half hour across Monday to Friday of a U.S. strip.
11 10486 I think the Guild would want that
12 level to be higher in prime. Maybe an hour would
13 generate a half hour strip.
14 10487 That is the kind of issue that is
15 uniquely for the Commission to weigh. You would have
16 to take into account what would be the impact on day
17 part for each additional incremental hour that you add
18 in prime.
19 10488 But the idea is a good one. The
20 Guild thought that that proposal made a lot of sense.
21 It allows broadcasters to increase their revenue
22 significantly in day part because of the problems of
23 their scheduling quota right now, and that will
24 contribute a bit to the costs that will be involved in
25 adding prime time Canadian drama.
StenoTran
2246
1 10489 MR. BLAIS: I appreciate that the
2 Commission has to weigh things. But it needs something
3 to weigh against.
4 10490 You are saying perhaps an hour. Is
5 it an hour or is it an hour and a half?
6 10491 MR. GRANT: I think the thought was
7 that an hour in prime, or the heart of prime, would
8 trigger a half hour Monday through Friday, in day part.
9 10492 MR. BLAIS: Thank you. Those are my
10 questions, Madam Chair.
11 10493 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.
12 Brand, Mr. King and Mr. Grant.
13 10494 We will take a five-minute break and
14 then hear SPACQ. We will start in the morning with
15 Shaw, because of lack of time.
16 10495 We hope that that is not
17 inconveniencing people beyond being courteous. But
18 that is the reality. It will be 5:20 by the time we
19 resume, and we will be unable to hear two more parties
20 in the remaining time.
21 10496 We will start with Shaw at 9 o'clock
22 tomorrow morning and hear SPACQ in the rest of the
23 allotted time.
24 10497 We will be back in five minutes.
25 --- Short recess at / Courte suspension à 1715
StenoTran
2247
1 --- Reprise à / Upon resuming at 1720
2 10498 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Madame la Secrétaire,
3 s'il vous plaît.
4 10499 Mme BÉNARD: Merci, madame la
5 Présidente.
6 10500 La prochaine présentation sera faite
7 par la Société professionnelle des auteurs et des
8 compositeurs du Québec, M. Bertrand et Mme Bertrand-
9 Venne.
10 10501 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Bonjour,
11 Madame Bertrand-Venne, Monsieur Bertrand.
12 PRÉSENTATION / PRESENTATION
13 10502 M. BERTRAND: Je voudrais commencer
14 par un préambule: rappeler aux gens qu'on fête cette
15 année le 50e anniversaire de la Déclaration universelle
16 des droits de l'homme, et rappeler aussi que le droit
17 d'auteur est un de ces droits humains reconnus par
18 l'ONU. C'est un droit reconnu à une personne physique
19 et non à une personne morale. Notre intervention
20 s'inscrit donc dans cet esprit. Nous souhaitons
21 vivement que le droit d'auteur continue à être
22 considéré comme un droit humain dans l'avenir.
23 10503 Maintenant, en bref, pour vous dire
24 un peu qui nous sommes, la SPACQ, c'est la Société
25 professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du
StenoTran
2248
1 Québec. La SPACQ représente les auteurs de chansons et
2 compositeurs de musique québécois, y compris les
3 compositeurs de musique de commande.
4 10504 La SPACQ est un organisme accrédité
5 par la Loi sur le statut de l'artiste, tant au fédéral
6 qu'au provincial.
7 10505 D'abord, qu'est-ce qu'un auteur ou un
8 compositeur? C'est un créateur. Un créateur, c'est
9 quelqu'un qui a le rare talent de pouvoir inventer
10 quelque chose à partir de rien. Un créateur et son
11 oeuvre sont au sommet de la pyramide, la source, la
12 matière première, dont tout le reste dépend et découle.
13 Sans le créateur, pas de chansons, pas
14 d'artistes-interprètes, pas de spectacles télévisés,
15 pas d'émissions de variétés, pas de scénarios, pas de
16 réalisateurs, pas de films ou de téléséries, pas de
17 trames sonores, pas de public, pas de télévision, pas
18 d'industrie culturelle, pas de société distincte,
19 fut-elle québécoise ou canadienne.
20 10506 Sans auteur, il n'y a pas de
21 ministère du Patrimoine, pas de CRTC, pas de Téléfilm,
22 pas de Fonds des câblodistributeurs. Il n'y a pas non
23 plus de télédiffuseurs ou de producteurs, et nous ne
24 sommes pas ici en ce moment à discuter de la politique
25 générale du CRTC sur la programmation de la télévision
StenoTran
2249
1 ou de définition à donner à l'expression "émission
2 canadienne", puisqu'il n'y a plus de contenu dont on
3 puisse parler.
4 10507 Le créateur est sur la ligne de
5 front. C'est le créateur, et lui seul, qui sait comment
6 reconstruire quotidiennement la fragile digue
7 culturelle sans cesse menacée par la force considérable
8 de la présence étrangère. C'est au créateur, et à lui
9 seul, qu'on se fie et à qui on demande de faire ce
10 boulet.
11 10508 Le créateur crée de la richesse pour
12 tout le monde dans son sillage: de la richesse
13 économique, bien sûr, mais aussi, et surtout peut-être,
14 de la richesse de coeur, d'âme, et d'émotions.
15 Autrement dit, c'est le créateur qui crée la diversité,
16 la richesse et la différence culturelle de ce pays.
17 10509 Il est important de rappeler que les
18 télédiffuseurs ne sont pas propriétaires des ondes.
19 Les ondes appartiennent au pays et aux citoyens; donc,
20 à vous et à nous. C'est donc un privilège que les
21 citoyens canadiens octroient aux détenteurs de licences
22 par le biais du CRTC.
23 10510 La télévision est considérée comme
24 une industrie culturelle, et profite donc directement
25 de l'exception culturelle négociée dans l'ALÉNA. La
StenoTran
2250
1 propriété des postes de télévision et obligatoirement
2 canadienne, par exemple.
3 10511 Les télédiffuseurs opèrent donc dans
4 un marché protégé par les lois du pays. Ce n'est pas
5 du tout le cas des créateurs québécois et canadiens
6 qui, eux, ne bénéficient d'aucune protection, et dont
7 les oeuvres sont en compétition directe et quotidienne
8 avec des créations provenant du monde entier.
9 10512 La Loi de la radiodiffusion, destinée
10 à assurer la présence d'un environnement culturel
11 canadien sur le territoire national, a très bien servi
12 l'intérêt des Canadiens en général, et en particulier
13 celui des télédiffuseurs. Ces privilèges accordés aux
14 entreprises entraînent des devoirs et des
15 responsabilités envers les citoyens canadiens.
16 10513 On ne peut pas, d'une part, plaider
17 qu'on est une industrie culturelle quand il s'agit de
18 jouir des avantages certains qui y sont associés, et
19 d'autre part continuellement exiger de fonctionner sans
20 contraintes, comme une entreprise régulière.
21 10514 Les télédiffuseurs doivent se
22 comporter en bons citoyens corporatifs et défendre la
23 culture de ce pays, sous peine de perdre leur licence
24 et leur statut d'industrie culturelle protégée par
25 l'ALÉNA. D'autres intervenants seraient très heureux
StenoTran
2251
1 de prendre leur place et souscrire à toutes les
2 conditions que le CRTC voudrait leur imposer.
3 10515 Imaginons un instant qu'on abolisse
4 totalement les quotas de contenu canadien. En moins de
5 deux, les télédiffuseurs se donnent une programmation
6 semblable à celle des Américains. En moins de deux
7 aussi, ils perdent toute identité propre et sont
8 emportés dans la tourmente, incapables de se démarquer
9 par la différence de leur contenu.
10 10516 En ce qui concerne les exigences de
11 contenu canadien et francophone, nous pensons qu'ils
12 devraient plutôt être définis en fonction de la place
13 qu'on décidera d'accorder aux productions étrangères
14 sur nos écrans. Il nous semble moins humiliant, plus
15 juste et plus élégant, de définir plutôt l'espace que
16 nous allons décider d'accorder aux étrangers qui
17 veulent venir chez nous.
18 10517 En ce qui concerne la politique du
19 CRTC dans le domaine de la chanson francophone, nous
20 vous faisons remarquer que la chanson canadienne
21 d'expression française ne se retrouve pas dans les
22 critères actuels, ce qui fait qu'un poste de télévision
23 francophone pourrait s'acquitter de ses devoirs et
24 responsabilités et remplir tous les critères du CRTC en
25 ne faisant pourtant jouer aucune chanson canadienne
StenoTran
2252
1 d'expression française. Il faut que le CRTC remédie à
2 cette situation, car il en va de la bonne santé de
3 l'industrie de l'enregistrement sonore et de tout le
4 star système québécois.
5 10518 Année après année, les télédiffuseurs
6 francophones diminuent le déjà très maigre espace
7 consacré à la chanson, surtout dans les grandes heures
8 d'écoute. Probablement pour la première fois dans
9 l'histoire de la télévision québécoise, aucune longue
10 série régulière de Catégorie 8 n'a été diffusée à la
11 télévision hertzienne pendant la majeure partie de
12 1997-98.
13 10519 Il n'y a qu'une série d'autre
14 catégorie que 8 qui soit principalement consacrée à la
15 chanson, une émission qui s'appelle "Moi ma chanson",
16 mais comme il s'agit d'une série composée de très
17 courts épisodes d'une minute chacun, sa durée annuelle
18 de diffusion est de moins de 30 minutes. Bien sûr, une
19 année ne fait pas une tendance lourde, mais tous les
20 indicateurs statistiques confirment que 1997-98
21 constitue un creux de vague historique en ce qui a
22 trait à la présence de la chanson à la télévision
23 francophone. Il en résulte donc une érosion de plus en
24 plus critique de notre fragile autonomie culturelle et
25 de notre souveraineté nationale.
StenoTran
2253
1 10520 Nous pensons par ailleurs qu'il est
2 grand temps que les "radios visuelles", que sont
3 MusiquePlus, Musimax, MuchMusic et compagnies, soient
4 soumises aux mêmes règles et critères que les radios
5 commerciales. Actuellement, les exigences de contenu
6 canadien et de contenu francophone sont respectivement
7 de 30 pour cent et 35 pour cent pour MusiquePlus, de 30
8 et 20 pour cent pour Musimax.
9 10521 Ces "radios visuelles" ont l'avantage
10 non négligeable de ne pas souffrir de la concurrence
11 directe de chaînes américaines, comme MTV ou VH-1, sur
12 le territoire canadien. Ce privilège leur est accordé
13 pour qu'elles puissent mettre en valeur et promouvoir
14 des oeuvres canadiennes. En fait, à cause des quotas
15 trop bas les régissant, la programmation est avant tout
16 composée d'oeuvres et d'artistes provenant de
17 l'étranger.
18 10522 Il y a une synergie, une imbrication,
19 une interdépendance, qui lient inexorablement entre eux
20 télédiffuseurs, radiodiffuseurs, journaux, interprètes,
21 auteurs, compositeurs, producteurs, éditeurs,
22 diffuseurs, propriétaires de salles de spectacles,
23 distributeurs, détaillants de disques, et j'en passe.
24 10523 La diminution de la présence de la
25 chanson sur les écrans de télévision a un effet domino
StenoTran
2254
1 dévastateur sur toute la chaîne des intervenants
2 économiques qui vivent de la chanson, y compris les
3 télédiffuseurs eux mêmes, car plus le vedettariat
4 artistique est développé, plus cela profite à toutes
5 les composantes. Le contraire est hélas tout aussi
6 vrai.
7 10524 La véritable bataille n'est pas entre
8 l'industrie de la télévision ou entre l'industrie de la
9 musique canadienne. Le véritable danger, l'ennemi, il
10 se trouve au sud de la frontière. Nous sommes les
11 voisins du pays le plus riche et le plus puissant du
12 monde, et ce voisin comprend parfaitement bien, lui, et
13 depuis longtemps, la formidable arme psychologique,
14 économique et sociale que représente la culture,
15 véritable cheval de Troie moderne.
16 10525 Déjà, avec le libre-échange, ça a
17 tout pris pour qu'on puisse introduire une exception
18 culturelle dans le contrat et, depuis, les Américains
19 ne cessent d'essayer de faire sauter ces exceptions par
20 tous les moyens et dans tous les pays. Ils ont d'abord
21 essayé lors de la négociation de l'accord du
22 libre-échange nord-américain, l'ALÉNA, puis par le
23 biais du GATT, ensuite via l'Organisation mondiale du
24 commerce, l'OMC, et ils reviennent maintenant à la
25 charge avec l'Accord multilatéral sur les
StenoTran
2255
1 investissements, l'AMI.
2 10526 Nous sommes donc assiégés, en
3 perpétuel danger d'assimilation culturelle, et, comme
4 tous les pays du monde, menacés de disparition en tant
5 que société et entité politique autonome.
6 10527 C'est dans ce contexte qu'il faut
7 comprendre et analyser la situation, et imposer
8 courageusement les correctifs qui s'imposent. Nous
9 devons donc nous serrer les coudes et tout mettre en
10 oeuvre pour augmenter notre indépendance culturelle, en
11 augmentant le contenu culturel canadien sur nos ondes.
12 C'est dans notre intérêt à tous. Il faut réaffirmer
13 l'importance de la diversité culturelle, et le droit à
14 la différence de tous les pays du monde.
15 10528 On parle de contenu, de propriété
16 intellectuelle, de territorialité des droits, et nous
17 espérons vivement que vous n'oublierez pas les
18 créateurs de contenu, les industries culturelles, dans
19 vos prières.
20 10529 Nous tenons à vous rappeler que c'est
21 pour cela que le CRTC existe: pour créer et défendre un
22 espace culturel canadien sur le territoire canadien.
23 10530 Merci de votre attention.
24 10531 J'aimerais céder la parole à ma
25 directrice générale, Francine Bertrand-Venne.
StenoTran
2256
1 10532 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: J'aimerais aussi
2 souligner que les membres de la SPACQ sont aussi... il
3 n'y a pas que la chanson, mais il y a les compositeurs
4 de la musique originale, des oeuvres audiovisuelles,
5 que vous retrouvez à la télévision.
6 10533 Nous avons été accrédités en vertu de
7 la Loi canadienne sur le statut de l'artiste, qui nous
8 permet de négocier les conditions de la prestation de
9 services de la composition de l'oeuvre originale
10 musicale dans tout programme de télévision. De plus,
11 nous sommes à négocier en vertu de la Loi québécoise
12 provinciale avec l'APFTQ, les producteurs indépendants.
13 10534 Je voulais que vous sachiez que nous
14 sommes tout à fait pertinents de finalement nous
15 préoccuper de l'utilisation de l'oeuvre musicale et de
16 sa création dans la télévision. Il y a donc tout le
17 volet des programmes de télévision qui nous préoccupe.
18 10535 Je voudrais aussi vous
19 sensibiliser... évidemment ici les gens se présentent
20 pour parler d'affaires, des plans d'affaires, et nous
21 sommes ici pour vous dire, oui, nous sommes ici pour
22 discuter de culture et de sa survie, mais nous sommes
23 ici pour vous dire est-ce que les créateurs de ce pays
24 peuvent vivre de cette merveilleuse industrie
25 télévisuelle?
StenoTran
2257
1 10536 Les créateurs vivent de deux choses:
2 de la prestation de services, quand un producteur
3 commande une oeuvre, qu'il soit diffuseur-production
4 public ou privé, ou qu'il producteur privé, il commande
5 à un auteur-compositeur une oeuvre originale pour son
6 film ou son programme de télévision. Ça contribue à
7 faire, pour ce producteur, un produit qui est
8 commercialisable. Il s'agit de savoir ici est-ce que
9 ces gens sont suffisamment respectés, est-ce qu'ils
10 sont suffisamment rémunérés, est-ce qu'ils profitent de
11 l'essor de cette industrie?
12 10537 J'aimerais vous sensibiliser au fait
13 que la production privée versus la production publique,
14 bien, vous ne serez pas étonnés que demain il y a une
15 première historique: la SPACQ est la seule association
16 de créateurs musicaux au Canada de s'être prévalue de
17 la loi canadienne, et donc nous signerons demain notre
18 première entente collective avec Radio-Canada, dans les
19 bureaux de Radio-Canada à Montréal, et c'est tout à
20 l'honneur de notre diffuseur public de l'avoir fait en
21 quatre mois, dans une négociation soutenue, et d'avoir
22 respecté intégralement le droit d'auteur.
23 10538 Comme diffuseurs, ils n'ont jamais
24 demandé d'abaissement de paiements, ni à la SOCAN, ni à
25 la SODRAC, qui gèrent le droit de reproduction des
StenoTran
2258
1 oeuvres musicales québécoises, en général.
2 10539 C'est très important ce que je vous
3 dis. Je ne veux pas faire ici d'éloge outre mesure. Il
4 y a des problématiques qui se regroupent sur l'ensemble
5 des diffuseurs et de la production, quant au quota,
6 quant au pourcentage attribuable, par exemple, aux
7 dramatiques par rapport aux variétés.
8 10540 J'aimerais suggérer, dans cet état
9 d'esprit, que le 150 pour cent qui est attribuable à
10 des téléséries, par exemple, en dramatiques, soit
11 attribuable à des émissions de variétés, parce que la
12 chanson est un parent pauvre de la télévision, et on a
13 noté que le compositeur de l'oeuvre originale d'un
14 programme de télévision reçoit ou accorde au producteur
15 un pourcentage, un point, de contenu canadien, tandis
16 que dans la variété, c'est l'artiste-interprète qui
17 obtient le point, ou qui octroie le point au
18 producteur. Ce qui veut donc dire qu'on encourage un
19 artiste-interprète.
20 10541 Ça va bien quand un
21 artiste-interprète peut chanter ses propres oeuvres, sa
22 propre création, mais il arrive souvent qu'un
23 artiste-interprète, et on le sait, dans les postes
24 privés au Québec, on incite l'artiste-interprète
25 souvent à jouer du répertoire étranger. Nos amis du
StenoTran
2259
1 CAB l'ont dit lors des audiences de la radio, "Canadian
2 music is no good", et la musique francophone fait fuir
3 les auditeurs francophones des stations francophones.
4 10542 Nous sommes ici pour vous dire rien
5 n'est moins vrai. Vous avez vu de grandes compagnies
6 de producteurs privés qui s'enorgueillissent d'avoir
7 créer du contenu canadien. Il y a définitivement de
8 grandes affaires qui se font actuellement au Canada,
9 nous en sommes très fiers, mais je crois que tout ça
10 est parti d'un diffuseur public qui a eu l'obligation
11 de faire du contenu canadien à l'origine et qui, au
12 Québec, assurément, a créé une habitude d'écoute chez
13 les Québécois qui fait en sorte que cette habitude
14 d'écoute profite grandement et aux diffuseurs privés et
15 aux producteurs privés.
16 10543 Quand on crée une habitude... je
17 viens d'entendre nos collègues canadiens-anglais, les
18 réalisateurs. Je constate que les problématiques ne
19 sont pas les mêmes au Canada anglais, mais chez nous au
20 Canada français, les Québécois écoutent majoritairement
21 la télé francophone, produite par des gens d'ici, par
22 des gens du Québec, et c'est beaucoup grâce à
23 Radio-Canada qui, en respectant les créateurs... et je
24 pense ici pas seulement aux musiques, mais aux
25 réalisateurs, aux scénaristes, qui ont créé une
StenoTran
2260
1 télévision qui soit bien québécoise, qui soit bien
2 fréquentée par les gens de notre pays.
3 10544 Donc, en quelque part c'est important
4 que vous considériez que nos amis les producteurs,
5 diffuseurs privés, je crois que la SOCAN va comparer
6 devant vous, ont obtenu des grands rabais de paiements
7 de droits d'auteur, et je vous dis bien franchement que
8 c'est important que vous soyez conscients de toutes ces
9 problématiques pour le créateur, parce que...
10 10545 Mme BÉNARD: Madame Bertrand-Venne,
11 est-ce que vous pourriez résumer, s'il vous plaît?
12 10546 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: C'est tout.
13 10547 Je cède la parole aux commissaires.
14 10548 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Madame
15 Bertrand-Venne, les problèmes que vous venez de
16 souligner sont des problèmes de droits, mais qui
17 évidemment s'insèrent dans toute la thématique
18 télévisuelle aussi.
19 10549 Votre inquiétude principale que vous
20 voulez nous apporter dans le contexte de cette audience
21 est l'absence de programmes variétés à la télévision,
22 ou au moins une baisse. J'ai lu la soumission de
23 l'ADISQ, et caetera. Est-ce qu'il y a, à votre avis...
24 et vous avez fait sans doute une recherche à laquelle
25 je pense on se réfère dans un autre contexte pour
StenoTran
2261
1 examiner l'absence ou la baisse des programmes variétés
2 à la télévision.
3 10550 Rappelez-moi quel est le cheminement
4 ou le changement, ou la baisse, de cette catégorie. À
5 votre avis, on y arrivait mieux déjà.
6 10551 M. BERTRAND: Oui. Je n'ai pas
7 l'étude avec moi, mais...
8 10552 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais à peu près?
9 10553 M. BERTRAND: ... je sais qu'en
10 quatre-vingt...
11 10554 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Une baisse de
12 80 pour cent.
13 10555 M. BERTRAND: Oui. C'est énorme
14 comme baisse.
15 10556 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Depuis quand?
16 10557 M. BERTRAND: Depuis 1994 ça a
17 diminué.
18 10558 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Dans une période de
19 quatre ans.
20 10559 M. BERTRAND: Oui.
21 10560 LA PRÉSIDENTE: À quoi attribuez-vous
22 cette baisse? Est-ce que c'est l'oeuf et la poule, ou
23 est-ce qu'il y a un contexte spécifique, ou est-ce que
24 c'est la façon qu'on attribue les fonds, ou...
25 10561 Si je me souviens bien, l'ADISQ
StenoTran
2262
1 suggère que ce sont nos définitions qui sont un
2 problème et qu'elles devraient être... je pourrais en
3 discuter avec eux, mais vous avez sans doute lu leur
4 soumission?
5 10562 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: C'est que nous,
6 la façon dont on voit ça c'est que les incitatifs du
7 CRTC qui ont été donnés aux dramatiques n'ont pas été
8 donnés à la variété. C'est un peu dans ce sens-là.
9 Quand on lu que 150 pour cent était attribuable à des
10 dramatiques, on ne retrouve pas ça du côté des
11 émissions de variétés, "variétés" étant compris comme
12 de l'exécution publique... enfin, entendre des artistes
13 chanter.
14 10563 Vous savez, les producteurs parlent
15 beaucoup de la culture mais ne la pratiquent plus, et
16 ça aussi c'est une grande constatation qu'on a faite.
17 10564 Le CRTC peut nous aider en ce sens
18 qu'il peut affecter et finalement créer des incitatifs
19 pour qu'il y ait de la production dans ce secteur.
20 10565 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et vous croyez que
21 c'est surtout ça qui a encouragé les télédiffuseurs
22 à...
23 10566 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Ça ne va
24 certainement pas nuire. Il y a toute une
25 problématique; évidemment ils vont nous objecter la
StenoTran
2263
1 rentabilité. Ce sont des hommes d'affaires. Ils
2 pensent à 50 choses et ils décident, eux, ce qui est à
3 la mode. Ils ont quand même de grandes libertés. Ils
4 ont des préoccupations économiques, et c'est sûr qu'ils
5 ont leur façon de voir les choses, mais on espère que
6 dans un univers réglementé... c'est justement pour ça
7 qu'on se présente devant vous. C'est qu'on s'attend
8 que tous les éléments du système puissent profiter de
9 la radiodiffusion, et en télévision, il faudrait bien
10 que ce soit aussi la chanson qui soit présente, ou
11 enfin que la musique populaire soit plus présente sur
12 nos ondes.
13 10567 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ça inclut la musique
14 aussi. Ce n'est pas seulement... un programme de
15 variétés pourrait inclure la musique aussi.
16 10568 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Absolument.
17 10569 M. BERTRAND: Oui. La musique
18 instrumentale aussi.
19 10570 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Est-ce que ça
20 inclurait des programmes dont on parle du côté Canada
21 anglais ou télévision de langue anglaise, des
22 programmes qui visent à projeter des personnalités, des
23 stars, et caetera, à votre avis?
24 10571 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Mais
25 certainement.
StenoTran
2264
1 10572 LA PRÉSIDENTE: En même temps.
2 10573 M. BERTRAND: Oui.
3 10574 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: C'est indéniable.
4 10575 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Même si ça n'incluait
5 pas la composante musique. Même si c'était simplement
6 un genre interview, mais dans le genre
7 divertissement...
8 10576 M. BERTRAND: Ça, on en a eu
9 beaucoup. On en a, de ça, mais ce n'est pas... ce sont
10 des émissions où on met en valeur le vedettariat, le
11 star system. On s'intéresse...
12 10577 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Plutôt que la
13 chanson.
14 10578 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Voilà.
15 10579 M. BERTRAND: Oui. On s'intéresse à
16 l'individu plutôt qu'à l'oeuvre, et nous, on est une
17 association de créateurs, donc ce qu'on veut c'est que
18 la chanson soit entendue à la télévision et qu'il y ait
19 un engouement qui fasse que ça fasse boule de neige et
20 que ça puisse avoir des répercussions dans le domaine
21 du spectacle vivant aussi, parce que, parce qu'il n'y a
22 plus d'émissions de télévision traditionnelles comme il
23 y en a eues à une autre époque...
24 10580 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ça ne mousse pas
25 l'industrie.
StenoTran
2265
1 10581 M. BERTRAND: ... ça a des
2 implications sur toute la chaîne au complet, et donc ce
3 serait important que les télévisions fassent leur
4 effort.
5 10582 Ce que je disais dans le mémoire
6 aussi est que ça va servir... tout le monde est prêt à
7 faire le jeu, et c'est un problème. Évidemment ça
8 coûte cher, faire des émissions de variétés, avec des
9 musiciens, des équipes. Il faut peut-être renouveler
10 la formule aussi.
11 10583 Peut-être que le CRTC pourrait
12 trouver une façon, entre autres, en augmentant la
13 valeur du pointage pour l'oeuvre ou le contenu de la
14 chanson par rapport aux oeuvres dramatiques. Si les
15 points qui étaient accordés pour le contenu canadien
16 étaient plus élevés, ce serait déjà une façon de
17 contribuer, votre façon de contribuer.
18 10584 Il faudrait peut-être penser aussi à
19 des façons de trouver du financement. Peut-être qu'on
20 n'est pas au bon forum, mais il y a des argents, des
21 banques culturelles peut-être qu'il faudrait qu'il y
22 ait des enveloppes qui soient obligatoirement dépensées
23 dans un domaine de variétés de chansons.
24 10585 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Est-ce que ce sont
25 des incitatifs qui ont été discutés dans le projet...
StenoTran
2266
1 10586 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Le groupe de
2 travail de la chanson, vous voulez dire?
3 10587 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Oui. Est-ce qu'il y a
4 d'autres incitatifs qui ont été discutés au Québec,
5 dans le contexte assez récent, d'examiner toute cette
6 problématique?
7 10588 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Ça a été ciblé
8 comme un des grands problèmes, en tout cas.
9 10589 M. BERTRAND: Oui. On siège en ce
10 moment...
11 10590 LA PRÉSIDENTE: C'est encore...
12 10591 M. BERTRAND: On est sur le point de
13 rédiger le rapport final, mais c'est sûrement une des..
14 enfin, tout le monde est d'accord pour dire qu'il y a
15 un problème. Les télédiffuseurs eux mêmes sentent
16 qu'il y a quelque chose d'anormal. Ils voudraient eux
17 aussi qu'on revienne à une formule où la chanson serait
18 plus présente.
19 10592 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Où ça existe.
20 10593 Est-ce que le fait qu'il y a
21 maintenant des chaînes spécialisées qui font des vidéos
22 24 heures par jour remplace un peu ce genre de
23 programmes, ou...
24 10594 Je vois que vous suggérez que leurs
25 exigences au niveau de la programmation canadienne des
StenoTran
2267
1 dépenses soient plus élevées.
2 10595 M. BERTRAND: Surtout la
3 programmation comme telle. La quantité d'oeuvres
4 canadiennes et québécoises ou, enfin, d'expression
5 française, soit plus élevée, parce qu'en ce moment ils
6 jouent, grosso modo, peut-être 15 pour cent de leur
7 programmation et de la chanson canadienne d'expression
8 française. Pour le reste, c'est de la musique
9 étrangère. Donc, c'est une très très faible vitrine
10 par rapport à ce qu'on a réussi à obtenir en radio, par
11 exemple.
12 10596 À mon point de vue, et d'après nous,
13 c'est une radio visuelle, que MusiquePlus ou Musimax,
14 donc ils devraient être tenus aux mêmes règles, ou ça
15 devrait se rapprocher de façon beaucoup plus
16 significative des exigences de contenu auxquelles les
17 radios sont déjà tenues. Je pense que ça aiderait
18 beaucoup.
19 10597 Par exemple, il y a une émission qui
20 s'appelle "Fax 57". C'est toujours, toujours, la
21 promotion des artistes américains ou étrangers, ou à
22 peu près, presqu'exclusivement. À un moment donné, ça a
23 un effet d'entraînement. C'est du non-dit, c'est
24 subliminal, mais les gens s'identifient à tout ce qui
25 vient d'ailleurs plutôt qu'à ce qui vient d'ici, et la
StenoTran
2268
1 culture d'ici devient parent pauvre par rapport à ce
2 qui vient d'ailleurs. Nul n'est prophète dans son
3 pays, et c'est la preuve qui est en train de se faire
4 jour après jours à travers la façon de procéder de
5 MusiquePlus et de Musimax.
6 10598 Je pense qu'ils ont un rôle important
7 à jouer, surtout auprès du jeune public, et c'est le
8 jeune public qui va être le public adulte de demain.
9 Pour le moment, on n'est pas assez présent, d'après
10 nous, dans cette forme de télévision, qui forme
11 l'écoute et le public de demain pour la chanson de
12 demain.
13 10599 Je pense que MusiquePlus ou les
14 radios spécialisées, ce que j'appelle les radios
15 visuelles...on devrait revoir leur mandat et être
16 beaucoup plus exigeant dans le travail qu'ils ont à
17 faire.
18 10600 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Mais généralement
19 aussi, je suppose que ces vidéo clips très courts ne
20 sont pas exactement le genre de programmation que vous
21 envisagez quand vous parlez de programmation de
22 variétés.
23 10601 M. BERTRAND: Non.
24 10602 LA PRÉSIDENTE: C'est autre chose.
25 10603 M. BERTRAND: Il y a un autre
StenoTran
2269
1 problème. Je pense que les télédiffuseurs
2 traditionnels se disent, on n'a pas besoin de faire ça
3 maintenant, parce que MusiquePlus le fait, Musimax le
4 fait, on n'a plus ce mandat-là à soutenir. Mais dans
5 les faits, voir un artiste en vidéo clip jour après
6 jour, c'est une façon de faire une promotion, mais ça
7 ne vend pas le spectacle sur scène, ça ne donne pas le
8 contact privilégié qu'on peut avoir avec un artiste
9 quand il y a une interview, quand on le voit jouer de
10 la guitare, quand il raconte sa vie, quand il raconte
11 comment il a écrit ses chansons.
12 10604 Il y a moyen d'avoir des interactions
13 dans une émission de variétés. Par exemple, l'auteur
14 de la chanson qui vient chanter avec l'interprète que
15 tout le monde a entendu à la radio. Il faut trouver
16 des façons d'interaction et une façon de présenter les
17 chansons et ceux qui les font de façon à ce que ça
18 devienne intéressant, et qu'on apprenne des choses
19 nouvelles, mais à travers la chanson et non pas à
20 travers des émissions où c'est des quiz et la chanson
21 sert de faire valoir un quiz. C'est plutôt le
22 contraire qui doit se faire maintenant. C'est de
23 mettre la chanson en évidence, la chanson en vedette,
24 et les artistes et les créateurs qui la font aussi
25 soient remis à la place qui leur revient.
StenoTran
2270
1 10605 Je pense que c'est vers ça que les
2 télédiffuseurs devraient... et je pense que tout le
3 monde veut le faire. Je pense qu'il y a de la bonne
4 volonté de toute... j'ai bon espoir que c'est vrai, que
5 les gens veulent faire plus de variétés à la
6 télévision. Il s'agit de trouver les moyens, et les
7 encouragements nécessaires, et peut-être que justement
8 le pointage augmenté que vous...
9 10606 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ce serait un
10 incitatif.
11 10607 M. BERTRAND: Ça pourrait aider, je
12 pense.
13 10608 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Et de le
14 rapporter à l'auteur-compositeur de la chanson...
15 10609 M. BERTRAND: Oui, au contenu.
16 10610 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: ... et pas
17 seulement à l'artiste-interprète.
18 10611 M. BERTRAND: Encore là, je pense
19 que...
20 10612 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: C'est un critère
21 qu'on a en radio, ça.
22 10613 M. BERTRAND: Oui. En général, on
23 pense que le critère fondamental qui fait que l'oeuvre
24 est canadienne, ou que le produit, si on veut employer
25 des termes de l'industrie, que le produit est canadien,
StenoTran
2271
1 c'est d'avoir avant tout le contenu, donc, la création
2 comme telle -- l'auteur, le scénariste, dépendant du
3 domaine dont on parle; l'auteur, le compositeur, le
4 scénariste, le réalisateur -- ce sont les éléments
5 créateurs qui font que l'oeuvre est canadienne. Donc,
6 ça devrait être privilégié, à plus forte raison dans le
7 domaine de la chanson parce que là, carrément, c'est le
8 point principal qui fait que la chanson est canadienne.
9 Ça devrait être considéré comme étant la composition,
10 comme ça l'est, comme disait Francine Bertrand-Venne,
11 en radio.
12 10614 Le critère est reconnu en radio; il
13 devrait l'être aussi en télévision pour la chanson.
14 10615 LA PRÉSIDENTE: C'est intéressant de
15 voir... je ne me souviens plus où, mais dernièrement
16 j'ai vu un de ces anciens programmes variétés avec
17 Félix Leclerc, et je pense Jacques Normand.
18 10616 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Oui, probablement
19 lors du décès de Jacques Normand...
20 10617 LA PRÉSIDENTE: C'est vrai qu'on
21 manque ça. Ce ne serait pas la même chose, parce que
22 ce sont des artistes différents, mais quand même
23 c'était...
24 10618 M. BERTRAND: Et vous avez
25 probablement vu cette émission-là à Canal D ou à une
StenoTran
2272
1 série spécialisée.
2 10619 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Pas Canal D, parce
3 que je ne le reçois pas, mais de toute façon j'ai vu ça
4 à la télévision. Ça m'a attiré.
5 10620 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Je voudrais aussi
6 attirer votre attention que quand on relègue la chanson
7 à des stations spécialisées, bientôt il y aura une
8 multitude d'offres, et il y aura des bouquets de
9 services. À ce moment-là, on peut banaliser, ou on
10 peut rendre la culture...
11 10621 M. BERTRAND: Marginaliser.
12 10622 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Marginaliser une
13 certaine facette de la culture. Il s'agit, quand on
14 est diffuseur, d'avoir une vision beaucoup plus large
15 de la culture, et c'est aussi à ce niveau-là qu'on fait
16 l'intervention.
17 10623 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Vous voulez dire la
18 question de se fier sur les services spécialisés...
19 10624 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Oui.
20 10625 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... et de vider les
21 ondes hertziennes de certaines...
22 10626 M. BERTRAND: Voilà; responsabilités
23 traditionnelles.
24 10627 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et surtout évidemment
25 au Québec, dans la région de Montréal, où la
StenoTran
2273
1 câblodistribution n'a pas une pénétration assez élevée,
2 il y a quand même une proportion assez grande de la
3 population qui ne recevrait pas les services, ou qui
4 n'achèterait pas le bouquet, est votre point.
5 10628 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Oui.
6 10629 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Donc, ce serait...
7 10630 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Ils en
8 achèteraient peut-être, mais je veux dire que c'est
9 important qu'on soit...
10 10631 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Ce serait relégué
11 plutôt que...
12 10632 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: ... dans une
13 vitrine de diffuseurs conventionnels aussi.
14 10633 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Que de faire partie
15 de la télévision conventionnelle.
16 10634 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Oui, tout à fait,
17 parce que je crois que la télévision en téléromans et
18 en dramatique a fait ses preuves. Un star system, nous
19 autres au Québec, on en a un. Les artistes connus, on
20 les a. On a fait une preuve de ce côté-là, et il faut
21 puiser dans...
22 10635 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Et vous voulez que...
23 10636 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Il faut puiser
24 dans ce succès.
25 10637 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Quand vous parlez, au
StenoTran
2274
1 paragraphe 2, je crois, à la deuxième page de votre
2 soumission, où vous parlez de quotas: Les quotas
3 doivent demeurer, doivent être obligatoires aux grandes
4 heures d'écoute. Vous parlez ici en général de
5 certains genres de programmation?
6 10638 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Oui. Absolument,
7 parce qu'il me semble que ça doit être proposable à
8 tous, parce que j'écoutais mes collègues de différents
9 secteurs, que ce soit producteurs privés, diffuseurs ou
10 producteurs privés, ou le diffuseur/producteur public,
11 en quelque part il me semble que les quotas canadiens
12 devraient être proposables à tous, et dans ce sens-là
13 ce devrait être tout à fait...
14 10639 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Là, vous parlez pour
15 tout le Canada?
16 10640 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Oui.
17 10641 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Parce qu'au Québec,
18 on n'a pas senti à date le besoin de faire plus que de
19 dire 60-50, et c'est de beaucoup dépassé évidemment les
20 heures de diffusion de programmation canadienne, même
21 aux heures de grande écoute, qui sont beaucoup plus
22 élevées, vraiment, que l'exigence.
23 10642 Je suis un peu alarmée par le fait
24 que vous aimeriez qu'on envisage qu'un pourcentage des
25 sommes d'argent qui proviennent des licences et qui
StenoTran
2275
1 servent au fonds du roulement du CRTC soit retourné au
2 soutien du financement de Radio-Canada, dans le fonds
3 consolidé du Canada. Vous n'avez pas l'intention de
4 nous enlever nos salaires?
5 10643 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Non, non, pas du
6 tout. C'est le surplus que génèrent les licences.
7 10644 Il me semblait que tout ce que vous
8 avez entendu précédemment est que cette grande
9 polémique entre le diffuseur public et les diffuseurs
10 privés et les producteurs privés provient du fait qu'au
11 Canada on a décidé que la radio d'État, on n'allait pas
12 la financer plus que ça.
13 10645 Le danger est de voir le diffuseur
14 public être obligé de glisser vers des pratiques
15 commerciales et obligé de faire une programmation et
16 piger, finalement, être en concurrence avec les
17 diffuseurs privés. Il me semblait que ce serait une
18 bonne idée d'être capable de pouvoir encourager un
19 certain soutien d'une autre façon, et de penser à des
20 façons de faire, puisque en quelque part il y a
21 peut-être des argents qui pourraient servir à la
22 culture qui vont au fonds consolidé des pays. Voilà.
23 10646 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je suis rassurée,
24 parce que j'aurais eu du mal à rapporter à Mme Bertrand
25 qu'il fallait...
StenoTran
2276
1 10647 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: Non, non, non.
2 Ce n'était pas mon propos. C'était dans...
3 10648 LA PRÉSIDENTE: ... couper son budget
4 pour le donner à Radio-Canada.
5 10649 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: C'était dans ce
6 qui pouvait excéder les besoins du CRTC.
7 10650 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je vous remercie.
8 10651 Conseiller juridique.
9 10652 Me BLAIS: J'ai une seule question,
10 et c'est un peu pour avoir votre réaction à une
11 proposition de l'ADISQ. C'est au paragraphe 61 des
12 recommandations de l'ADISQ. Je sais que vous ne l'avez
13 peut-être pas devant vous, donc je vais vous lire ce
14 qu'ils proposent.
15 10653 Ils disent qu'au moins 5 pour cent
16 des ressources du programme de participation au capital
17 et du programme de droit de diffusion du CTCPEC soit
18 alloué aux émissions de catégorie 8, et que ce serait
19 un objectif à atteindre sur une période de deux ans.
20 10654 Que pensez-vous de cette
21 recommandation?
22 10655 M. BERTRAND: C'est un petit peu ce
23 que j'essayais de dire tout à l'heure, de façon
24 peut-être un peu moins claire, un peu plus ambiguë,
25 mais oui, c'est une réflexion qu'on a partagée
StenoTran
2277
1 ensemble, dans le fond, à travers le groupe de travail
2 sur la chanson québécoise. C'est un peu ça, je pense.
3 C'est de définir un montant à travers les argents qui
4 sont déjà disponibles, mais qui soit attribué de façon
5 prioritaire ou obligatoire à la production d'émissions
6 de Catégorie 8, parce qu'il n'y en a plus. Il n'y en a
7 pas en ce moment, ou il y en a peut-être une qui vient
8 de commencer.
9 10656 La télévision en ce moment... enfin,
10 la chanson est parent pauvre à la télévision
11 traditionnelle, et ça a un impact à tous points de vue:
12 sur la vente de disques, sur l'achat de billets de
13 spectacles.
14 10657 Je pense qu'il y a un problème, mais
15 la roue doit tourner, et tous les intervenants... il
16 faut huiler la roue qui grince, et je pense que la
17 télévision est la roue qui boitte en ce moment, et les
18 autres morceaux devraient repartir. Je pense que tout
19 le monde peut y gagner en ayant des émissions de
20 qualité dans les grandes heures d'écoute à la
21 télévision.
22 10658 Le public va retrouver ses artistes,
23 et ça va se répercuter sur les ventes de disques, sur
24 les spectacles. Donc on est d'accord finalement avec
25 cette idée-là.
StenoTran
2278
1 10659 Me BLAIS: C'est très bien.
2 10660 Merci. Ce sont mes questions.
3 10661 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous vous remercions,
4 Madame Bertrand-Venne, Monsieur Bertrand, et bon retour
5 à Montréal. Vous rentrez ce soir?
6 10662 M. BERTRAND: Oui. On n'a pas les
7 moyens d'avoir une chambre d'hôtel.
8 10663 Mme BERTRAND-VENNE: On était bien
9 contents de passer aujourd'hui.
10 10664 LA PRÉSIDENTE: C'est bien. Je vous
11 voyais assis là.
12 10665 Nous avons siégé souvent jusqu'à même
13 8 h 00, alors ça nous...
14 10666 M. BERTRAND: Vous allez pouvoir vous
15 reposer.
16 10667 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous essayons
17 d'accommoder autant que possible.
18 10668 M. BERTRAND: On vous souhaite un bon
19 appétit, un bon souper, un bon dodo.
20 10669 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci. Bonsoir.
21 10670 Nous reprendrons demain matin à
22 9 h 00. We will be back tomorrow morning at 9:00.
23
24
25
StenoTran
2279
1 --- The hearing adjourned at 1752, to resume on
2 Friday, October 2, 1998, at 0900 / L'audience
3 est ajournée à 1752, pour reprendre le
4 vendredi 2 octobre 1998, à 0900
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
StenoTran
- Date modified: